From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860DEC433DF for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DF25206D5; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="g84MM7lL"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="mdm9UGHu"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eJi4rhkb" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4DF25206D5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiTjs-0003zE-R7; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 02:11:44 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiTjk-0003yv-UN for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 02:11:36 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=BLTWWqJcqOjcsGFUYjXWdse36QH6H4/pKLNxWVml+EQ=; b=g84MM7lLDj5vm+Eu/UNETqy6TQ TcDTLGym8X3qaiRCpUtDuok6Wde1bT+rIRYZZy3LNcdr60zfWDyexn+pU3WWYgTTUu9u5ZiDhs9Ii eJjBrKLo5Ca5/wczt0W4PC8rClb8Guq8gM+ImSWrn7u0IjNRr1pKQPQ9A79l9Lsg5khc=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=BLTWWqJcqOjcsGFUYjXWdse36QH6H4/pKLNxWVml+EQ=; b=mdm9UGHuHYaXypN9/SK8oj36un V5ua8WHuPZHYCgcbrWdGQaJYo5gLM8S4P8EbEeFrcdFSHpt9vuTQPyY3wW8mmS4doIrftXk4e5B7d zW0/IFCW9rhS0c94WvOapsICq2TUGjklpmKYT5lo7RTJ8zzyQ1kSaEb8GZTRd/qLfBJE=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1jiTjh-00CBy1-5y for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 02:11:34 +0000 Received: from gmail.com (unknown [104.132.1.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C38CE206D5; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:11:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1591668682; bh=8h4rg0+OI/koec/ZL494mV9tlBq01rrgE5xxzVnk0UA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eJi4rhkb7JPzRxFf2Fjdot296AwsjbJvZrIRJf7mNIRekcRDN8m4rQv3SYISCebZk iQ+Oa93TfIr+cIOdiAJDboQaWw8o5dsEC9FIumeeQK5LcpYza+G4zJsvkqZH+ARpoo A+jX6gSTUpN62QDPxD6+KBRIh5bet1dRA+h1Ub+k= Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 19:11:21 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20200609021121.GA43422@gmail.com> References: <20200605045748.34018-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <57c9bfa7-9b15-64e5-8b33-eb9829399f87@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57c9bfa7-9b15-64e5-8b33-eb9829399f87@huawei.com> X-Headers-End: 1jiTjh-00CBy1-5y Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: don't return vmalloc() memory from f2fs_kmalloc() X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 09:36:50AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2020/6/5 12:57, Eric Biggers wrote: > > From: Eric Biggers > > > > kmalloc() returns kmalloc'ed memory, and kvmalloc() returns either > > kmalloc'ed or vmalloc'ed memory. But the f2fs wrappers, f2fs_kmalloc() > > and f2fs_kvmalloc(), both return both kinds of memory. > > > > It's redundant to have two functions that do the same thing, and also > > breaking the standard naming convention is causing bugs since people > > assume it's safe to kfree() memory allocated by f2fs_kmalloc(). See > > e.g. the various allocations in fs/f2fs/compress.c. > > > > Fix this by making f2fs_kmalloc() just use kmalloc(). And to avoid > > re-introducing the allocation failures that the vmalloc fallback was > > intended to fix, convert the largest allocations to use f2fs_kvmalloc(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers > > --- > > > > v2: also use f2fs_kvzalloc() in init_blkz_info() > > > > fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 4 ++-- > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 8 +------- > > fs/f2fs/node.c | 8 ++++---- > > fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > index 3dc3ac6fe14324..23606493025165 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > @@ -895,8 +895,8 @@ int f2fs_get_valid_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) > > int i; > > int err; > > > > - sbi->ckpt = f2fs_kzalloc(sbi, array_size(blk_size, cp_blks), > > - GFP_KERNEL); > > + sbi->ckpt = f2fs_kvzalloc(sbi, array_size(blk_size, cp_blks), > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!sbi->ckpt) > > return -ENOMEM; > > /* > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > index 50e6cdf20b7331..c812fb8e2d9c7a 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > @@ -2998,18 +2998,12 @@ static inline bool f2fs_may_extent_tree(struct inode *inode) > > static inline void *f2fs_kmalloc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > > size_t size, gfp_t flags) > > { > > - void *ret; > > - > > if (time_to_inject(sbi, FAULT_KMALLOC)) { > > f2fs_show_injection_info(sbi, FAULT_KMALLOC); > > return NULL; > > } > > > > - ret = kmalloc(size, flags); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret; > > - > > - return kvmalloc(size, flags); > > + return kmalloc(size, flags); > > Then could we revert to use kfree instead of kvfree if memory was allocated > from f2fs_kmalloc()? though there is actual problem w/o reverting. > Yes, I think we should prefer kfree() when the memory was allocated with f2fs_kmalloc(). It's not critical though, since kvfree() works on kmalloc'ed memory. So it should be a separate patch later. - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel