From: Guangliang Zhao <gzhao@suse.com>
To: Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@inktank.com>
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rbd: fix the memory leak of bio_chain_clone
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:17:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120727061749.GA7422@linux-b964.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC-hyiFcUsu-q3-PosCb_4WdA7RXAuPy2vLsBRpRJZNKSiYUgw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:28:47PM -0700, Yehuda Sadeh wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Guangliang Zhao <gzhao@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > The bio_pair alloced in bio_chain_clone would not be freed,
> > this will cause a memory leak. It could be freed actually only
> > after 3 times release, because the reference count of bio_pair
> > is initialized to 3 when bio_split and bio_pair_release only
> > drops the reference count.
> >
> > The function bio_pair_release must be called three times for
> > releasing bio_pair, and the callback functions of bios on the
> > requests will be called when the last release time in bio_pair_release,
> > however, these functions will also be called in rbd_req_cb. In
> > other words, they will be called twice, and it may cause serious
> > consequences.
> >
> > This patch clones bio chian from the origin directly, doesn't use
> > bio_split(without bio_pair). The new bio chain can be release
> > whenever we don't need it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guangliang Zhao <gzhao@suse.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/rbd.c | 73
> > +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> > 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> > index 013c7a5..5aa45fa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> > @@ -712,51 +712,46 @@ static void zero_bio_chain(struct bio *chain, int
> > start_ofs)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -/*
> > - * bio_chain_clone - clone a chain of bios up to a certain length.
> > - * might return a bio_pair that will need to be released.
> > +/**
> > + * bio_chain_clone - clone a chain of bios up to a certain length.
> > + * @old: bio to clone
> > + * @offset: start point for bio clone
> > + * @len: length of bio chain
> > + * @gfp_mask: allocation priority
> > + *
> > + * RETURNS:
> > + * Pointer to new bio chain on success, NULL on failure.
> > */
> > -static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, struct bio **next,
> > - struct bio_pair **bp,
> > +static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, int *offset,
> > int len, gfp_t gfpmask)
> > {
> > struct bio *tmp, *old_chain = *old, *new_chain = NULL, *tail =
> > NULL;
> > int total = 0;
> >
> > - if (*bp) {
> > - bio_pair_release(*bp);
> > - *bp = NULL;
> > - }
> > -
> > while (old_chain && (total < len)) {
> > + int need = len - total;
> > +
> > tmp = bio_kmalloc(gfpmask, old_chain->bi_max_vecs);
> > if (!tmp)
> > goto err_out;
> >
> > - if (total + old_chain->bi_size > len) {
> > - struct bio_pair *bp;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * this split can only happen with a single paged
> > bio,
> > - * split_bio will BUG_ON if this is not the case
> > - */
> > - dout("bio_chain_clone split! total=%d
> > remaining=%d"
> > - "bi_size=%d\n",
> > - (int)total, (int)len-total,
> > - (int)old_chain->bi_size);
> > -
> > - /* split the bio. We'll release it either in the
> > next
> > - call, or it will have to be released outside */
> > - bp = bio_split(old_chain, (len - total) /
> > SECTOR_SIZE);
> > - if (!bp)
> > - goto err_out;
> > -
> > - __bio_clone(tmp, &bp->bio1);
> > -
> > - *next = &bp->bio2;
> > + __bio_clone(tmp, old_chain);
> > + tmp->bi_sector += *offset >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > + tmp->bi_io_vec->bv_offset += *offset >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > + /*
> > + * The bios span across multiple osd objects must be
> > + * single paged, rbd_merge_bvec would guarantee it.
> > + * So we needn't worry about other things.
> > + */
> > + if (tmp->bi_size - *offset > need) {
> > + tmp->bi_size = need;
> > + tmp->bi_io_vec->bv_len = need;
> > + *offset += need;
> > } else {
> > - __bio_clone(tmp, old_chain);
> > - *next = old_chain->bi_next;
> > + old_chain = old_chain->bi_next;
> > + tmp->bi_size -= *offset;
> > + tmp->bi_io_vec->bv_offset -= *offset;
>
> offset is the position within the bio chain, bv_offset is the offset
> within the specific page. Does this make sense?
Sorry for that mistake, it should be:
tmp->bi_io_vec->bv_len -= *offset;
>
>
> > + *offset = 0;
> > }
> >
> > tmp->bi_bdev = NULL;
> > @@ -769,7 +764,6 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old,
> > struct bio **next,
> > tail->bi_next = tmp;
> > tail = tmp;
> > }
> > - old_chain = old_chain->bi_next;
> >
> > total += tmp->bi_size;
> > }
> > @@ -1447,13 +1441,12 @@ static void rbd_rq_fn(struct request_queue *q)
> > {
> > struct rbd_device *rbd_dev = q->queuedata;
> > struct request *rq;
> > - struct bio_pair *bp = NULL;
> >
> > while ((rq = blk_fetch_request(q))) {
> > struct bio *bio;
> > - struct bio *rq_bio, *next_bio = NULL;
> > + struct bio *rq_bio;
> > bool do_write;
> > - int size, op_size = 0;
> > + int size, op_size = 0, offset = 0;
> > u64 ofs;
> > int num_segs, cur_seg = 0;
> > struct rbd_req_coll *coll;
> > @@ -1503,7 +1496,7 @@ static void rbd_rq_fn(struct request_queue *q)
> > ofs, size,
> > NULL, NULL);
> > kref_get(&coll->kref);
> > - bio = bio_chain_clone(&rq_bio, &next_bio, &bp,
> > + bio = bio_chain_clone(&rq_bio, &offset,
> > op_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > if (!bio) {
> > rbd_coll_end_req_index(rq, coll, cur_seg,
> > @@ -1531,12 +1524,8 @@ next_seg:
> > ofs += op_size;
> >
> > cur_seg++;
> > - rq_bio = next_bio;
> > } while (size > 0);
> > kref_put(&coll->kref, rbd_coll_release);
> > -
> > - if (bp)
> > - bio_pair_release(bp);
> > spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 1.7.3.4
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thanks for you reply.
--
Best regards,
Guangliang
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-27 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-24 6:06 [PATCH v2] rbd: fix the memory leak of bio_chain_clone Guangliang Zhao
2012-07-24 19:28 ` Yehuda Sadeh
2012-07-27 6:17 ` Guangliang Zhao [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120727061749.GA7422@linux-b964.site \
--to=gzhao@suse.com \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yehuda@inktank.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.