From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: don't use for-inside-for in bio_for_each_segment_all
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:38:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190409113841.GZ22763@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190409094839.GA6827@lst.de>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 11:48:39AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:12:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:07:55AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > Oh yes, please do.
> > > The macros are fast becoming unparseable :-)
> >
> > I think something that would help is removing the mandatory 'i' parameter
> > to this iterator. Most of the users don't use it, and the ones that do
> > can implement it themselves. eg:
>
> Yeah, I quickly hacked this up during a meeting yesterday and we have
> exactly two users of the iterator. Patch against the for-linus tree
three in the below patch ...
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c b/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> index 64def336f053..aa793fef52eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> @@ -429,14 +429,16 @@ static void do_btree_node_write(struct btree *b)
> bset_sector_offset(&b->keys, i));
>
> if (!bch_bio_alloc_pages(b->bio, __GFP_NOWARN|GFP_NOWAIT)) {
> - int j;
> + int j = 0;
> struct bio_vec *bv;
> void *base = (void *) ((unsigned long) i & ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1));
> struct bvec_iter_all iter_all;
>
> - bio_for_each_segment_all(bv, b->bio, j, iter_all)
> + bio_for_each_segment_all(bv, b->bio, iter_all) {
> memcpy(page_address(bv->bv_page),
> base + j * PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
> + j++;
> + }
I think this one works better to replace 'base' with 'addr':
@@ -429,14 +429,14 @@ static void do_btree_node_write(struct btree *b)
bset_sector_offset(&b->keys, i));
if (!bch_bio_alloc_pages(b->bio, __GFP_NOWARN|GFP_NOWAIT)) {
- int j;
struct bio_vec *bv;
- void *base = (void *) ((unsigned long) i & ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1));
+ void *addr = (void *) ((unsigned long) i & ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1));
struct bvec_iter_all iter_all;
- bio_for_each_segment_all(bv, b->bio, j, iter_all)
- memcpy(page_address(bv->bv_page),
- base + j * PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
+ bio_for_each_segment_all(bv, b->bio, iter_all) {
+ memcpy(page_address(bv->bv_page), addr, PAGE_SIZE);
+ addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+ }
bch_submit_bbio(b->bio, b->c, &k.key, 0);
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -2110,7 +2110,7 @@ static void process_checks(struct r1bio *r1_bio)
> }
> r1_bio->read_disk = primary;
> for (i = 0; i < conf->raid_disks * 2; i++) {
> - int j;
> + int j = 0;
> struct bio *pbio = r1_bio->bios[primary];
> struct bio *sbio = r1_bio->bios[i];
> blk_status_t status = sbio->bi_status;
> @@ -2125,8 +2125,8 @@ static void process_checks(struct r1bio *r1_bio)
> /* Now we can 'fixup' the error value */
> sbio->bi_status = 0;
>
> - bio_for_each_segment_all(bi, sbio, j, iter_all)
> - page_len[j] = bi->bv_len;
> + bio_for_each_segment_all(bi, sbio, iter_all)
> + page_len[j++] = bi->bv_len;
Yes.
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -7919,7 +7918,7 @@ static void btrfs_retry_endio(struct bio *bio)
> struct bio_vec *bvec;
> int uptodate;
> int ret;
> - int i;
> + int i = 0;
> struct bvec_iter_all iter_all;
>
> if (bio->bi_status)
> @@ -7934,7 +7933,7 @@ static void btrfs_retry_endio(struct bio *bio)
> failure_tree = &BTRFS_I(inode)->io_failure_tree;
>
> ASSERT(!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_CLONED));
> - bio_for_each_segment_all(bvec, bio, i, iter_all) {
> + bio_for_each_segment_all(bvec, bio, iter_all) {
> ret = __readpage_endio_check(inode, io_bio, i, bvec->bv_page,
> bvec->bv_offset, done->start,
> bvec->bv_len);
> @@ -7946,6 +7945,7 @@ static void btrfs_retry_endio(struct bio *bio)
> bvec->bv_offset);
> else
> uptodate = 0;
> + i++;
> }
I'd be tempted to instead:
@@ -7935,7 +7935,7 @@ static void btrfs_retry_endio(struct bio *bio)
ASSERT(!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_CLONED));
bio_for_each_segment_all(bvec, bio, i, iter_all) {
- ret = __readpage_endio_check(inode, io_bio, i, bvec->bv_page,
+ ret = __readpage_endio_check(inode, io_bio, i++, bvec->bv_page,
bvec->bv_offset, done->start,
bvec->bv_len);
if (!ret)
(i is used nowhere else in this loop, and it's a mercifully short loop with
no breaks or continues).
Thanks for turning this musing into a patch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-09 11:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-06 21:54 [PATCH] block: don't use for-inside-for in bio_for_each_segment_all Ming Lei
2019-04-07 6:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-04-07 7:37 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-07 7:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-04-07 7:54 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-07 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-04-07 8:13 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-08 6:07 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-04-08 14:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-09 9:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-04-09 10:25 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-04-09 11:38 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2019-04-09 15:36 ` David Sterba
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=20190409113841.GZ22763@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=osandov@fb.com \
--cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).