Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 18/19] dm-crypt: check if adding pages to clone bio fails
On 3/30/23 09:17, Yang Shi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:49 PM Damien Le Moal > wrote: >> >> On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >>> Check if adding pages to clone bio fails and if bail out. >> >> Nope. The code retries with direct reclaim until it succeeds. Which is very >> suspicious... > > It is not related to bio_add_page() failure. It is used to avoid a > race condition when two processes are depleting the mempool > simultaneously. > > IIUC I don't think page merge may happen for dm-crypt, so is > __bio_add_page() good enough? I'm working on this code too, using > __bio_add_page() would make my patch easier. If the BIO was allocated with enough bvecs, we could use that function. But page merging reduces overhead, so if it can happen, let's use it. > >> >>> >>> This way we can mark bio_add_pages as __must_check. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn >> >> With the commit message fixed, >> >> Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal >> >> >> -- >> Damien Le Moal >> Western Digital Research >> >> -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 18/19] dm-crypt: check if adding pages to clone bio fails
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:49 PM Damien Le Moal wrote: > > On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > Check if adding pages to clone bio fails and if bail out. > > Nope. The code retries with direct reclaim until it succeeds. Which is very > suspicious... It is not related to bio_add_page() failure. It is used to avoid a race condition when two processes are depleting the mempool simultaneously. IIUC I don't think page merge may happen for dm-crypt, so is __bio_add_page() good enough? I'm working on this code too, using __bio_add_page() would make my patch easier. > > > > > This way we can mark bio_add_pages as __must_check. > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn > > With the commit message fixed, > > Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal > > > -- > Damien Le Moal > Western Digital Research > >
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 19/19] block: mark bio_add_page as __must_check
On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > Now that all users of bio_add_page check for the return value, mark > bio_add_page as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] return an ERR_PTR from __filemap_get_folio v2
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 04:04:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Note that the shmem patches in here are non-trivial and need some > > careful review and testing. > > How are we going with the review and testing. I assume that > we're now OK on the runtime testing front, but do you feel that > review has been adequate? Yes, I think we're fine, mostly due to Hugh. I'm a little sad about the simplification / descoping from him, but at least we get the main objective done. Maybe at some point we can do another pass at cleaning up the shmem page finding/reading mess.
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 18/19] dm-crypt: check if adding pages to clone bio fails
On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > Check if adding pages to clone bio fails and if bail out. Nope. The code retries with direct reclaim until it succeeds. Which is very suspicious... > > This way we can mark bio_add_pages as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn With the commit message fixed, Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 17/19] md: raid1: check if adding pages to resync bio fails
On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Check if adding pages to resync bio fails and if bail out.
>
> As the comment above suggests this cannot happen, WARN if it actually
> happens.
>
> This way we can mark bio_add_pages as __must_check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn
> ---
> drivers/md/raid1-10.c | 7 ++-
> drivers/md/raid10.c | 12 ++--
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1-10.c b/drivers/md/raid1-10.c
> index e61f6cad4e08..c21b6c168751 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1-10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1-10.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,12 @@ static void md_bio_reset_resync_pages(struct bio *bio,
> struct resync_pages *rp,
>* won't fail because the vec table is big
>* enough to hold all these pages
>*/
> - bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0);
> + if (WARN_ON(!bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0))) {
Not sure we really need the WARN_ON here...
Nevertheless,
Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal
> + bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> + bio_endio(bio);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> size -= len;
> } while (idx++ < RESYNC_PAGES && size > 0);
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> index 6c66357f92f5..5682dba52fd3 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -3808,7 +3808,11 @@ static sector_t raid10_sync_request(struct mddev
> *mddev, sector_t sector_nr,
>* won't fail because the vec table is big enough
>* to hold all these pages
>*/
> - bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0);
> + if (WARN_ON(!bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0))) {
> + bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> + bio_endio(bio);
> + goto giveup;
> + }
> }
> nr_sectors += len>>9;
> sector_nr += len>>9;
> @@ -4989,7 +4993,11 @@ static sector_t reshape_request(struct mddev *mddev,
> sector_t sector_nr,
>* won't fail because the vec table is big enough
>* to hold all these pages
>*/
> - bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0);
> + if (WARN_ON(!bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0))) {
> + bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> + bio_endio(bio);
> + return sectors_done; /* XXX: is this correct? */
> + }
> }
> sector_nr += len >> 9;
> nr_sectors += len >> 9;
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 16/19] md: raid1: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The sync request code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created > bio. > bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 15/19] md: check for failure when adding pages in alloc_behind_master_bio
On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > alloc_behind_master_bio() can possibly add multiple pages to a bio, but it > is not checking for the return value of bio_add_page() if adding really > succeeded. > > Check if the page adding succeeded and if not bail out. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 14/19] floppy: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:06, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The floppy code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. > bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 13/19] zram: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The zram writeback code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly > created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never > checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 12/19] zonefs: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The zonefs superblock reading code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a > newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is > never checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Acked-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 11/19] gfs: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The GFS superblock reading code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a > newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never > checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 10/19] jfs: logmgr: use __bio_add_page to add single page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The JFS IO code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. > bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 09/19] btrfs: raid56: use __bio_add_page to add single page
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The btrfs raid58 sector submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page > to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is > never checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 08/19] btrfs: repair: use __bio_add_page for adding single page
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The btrfs repair bio submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to > a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is > never checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 07/19] md: raid5: use __bio_add_page to add single page to new bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The raid5-ppl submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a > newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never > checked. For adding consecutive pages, the return is actually checked and > a new bio is allocated if adding the page fails. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 05/19] md: use __bio_add_page to add single page
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The md-raid superblock writing code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a > newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never > checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-of_-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 06/19] md: raid5-log: use __bio_add_page to add single page
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The raid5 log metadata submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page > to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is > never checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 03/19] dm: dm-zoned: use __bio_add_page for adding single metadata page
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > dm-zoned uses bio_add_page() for adding a single page to a freshly created > metadata bio. > > Use __bio_add_page() instead as adding a single page to a new bio is > always guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() __must_check > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 04/19] fs: buffer: use __bio_add_page to add single page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The buffer_head submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a > newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never > checked. > > Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is > guaranteed to succeed. > > This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 02/19] drbd: use __bio_add_page to add page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The drbd code only adds a single page to a newly created bio. So use > __bio_add_page() to add the page which is guaranteed to succeed in this > case. > > This brings us closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn With Matthew comment addressed, Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 01/19] swap: use __bio_add_page to add page to bio
On 3/30/23 02:05, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > The swap code only adds a single page to a newly created bio. So use > __bio_add_page() to add the page which is guaranteed to succeed in this > case. > > This brings us closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 02/19] drbd: use __bio_add_page to add page to bio
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:05:48AM -0700, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c > @@ -1043,9 +1043,11 @@ static void bm_page_io_async(struct drbd_bm_aio_ctx > *ctx, int page_nr) __must_ho > bio = bio_alloc_bioset(device->ldev->md_bdev, 1, op, GFP_NOIO, > &drbd_md_io_bio_set); > bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = on_disk_sector; > - /* bio_add_page of a single page to an empty bio will always succeed, > - * according to api. Do we want to assert that? */ > - bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0); > + /* > + * __bio_add_page of a single page to an empty bio will always succeed, > + * according to api. Do we want to assert that? > + */ > + __bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0); Surely the comment should just be deleted? With no return value to check, what would you assert?
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 10/19] jfs: logmgr: use __bio_add_page to add single page to bio
The JFS IO code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c b/fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c index 695415cbfe98..15c645827dec 100644 --- a/fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c +++ b/fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c @@ -1974,7 +1974,7 @@ static int lbmRead(struct jfs_log * log, int pn, struct lbuf ** bpp) bio = bio_alloc(log->bdev, 1, REQ_OP_READ, GFP_NOFS); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = bp->l_blkno << (log->l2bsize - 9); - bio_add_page(bio, bp->l_page, LOGPSIZE, bp->l_offset); + __bio_add_page(bio, bp->l_page, LOGPSIZE, bp->l_offset); BUG_ON(bio->bi_iter.bi_size != LOGPSIZE); bio->bi_end_io = lbmIODone; @@ -2115,7 +2115,7 @@ static void lbmStartIO(struct lbuf * bp) bio = bio_alloc(log->bdev, 1, REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC, GFP_NOFS); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = bp->l_blkno << (log->l2bsize - 9); - bio_add_page(bio, bp->l_page, LOGPSIZE, bp->l_offset); + __bio_add_page(bio, bp->l_page, LOGPSIZE, bp->l_offset); BUG_ON(bio->bi_iter.bi_size != LOGPSIZE); bio->bi_end_io = lbmIODone; -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 00/19] bio: check return values of bio_add_page
We have two functions for adding a page to a bio, __bio_add_page() which is used to add a single page to a freshly created bio and bio_add_page() which is used to add a page to an existing bio. While __bio_add_page() is expected to succeed, bio_add_page() can fail. This series converts the callers of bio_add_page() which can easily use __bio_add_page() to using it and checks the return of bio_add_page() for callers that don't work on a freshly created bio. Lastly it marks bio_add_page() as __must_check so we don't have to go again and audit all callers. Johannes Thumshirn (19): swap: use __bio_add_page to add page to bio drbd: use __bio_add_page to add page to bio dm: dm-zoned: use __bio_add_page for adding single metadata page fs: buffer: use __bio_add_page to add single page to bio md: use __bio_add_page to add single page md: raid5-log: use __bio_add_page to add single page md: raid5: use __bio_add_page to add single page to new bio btrfs: repair: use __bio_add_page for adding single page btrfs: raid56: use __bio_add_page to add single page jfs: logmgr: use __bio_add_page to add single page to bio gfs: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio zonefs: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio zram: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio floppy: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio md: check for failure when adding pages in alloc_behind_master_bio md: raid1: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio md: raid1: check if adding pages to resync bio fails dm-crypt: check if adding pages to clone bio fails block: mark bio_add_page as __must_check drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c | 8 +--- drivers/block/floppy.c | 2 +- drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c| 2 +- drivers/md/dm-crypt.c| 9 - drivers/md/dm-zoned-metadata.c | 6 +++--- drivers/md/md.c | 4 ++-- drivers/md/raid1-10.c| 7 ++- drivers/md/raid1.c | 5 +++-- drivers/md/raid10.c | 12 ++-- drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 2 +- drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/bio.c | 2 +- fs/btrfs/raid56.c| 2 +- fs/buffer.c | 2 +- fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c | 2 +- fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c | 4 ++-- fs/zonefs/super.c| 2 +- include/linux/bio.h | 2 +- mm/page_io.c | 8 19 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 06/19] md: raid5-log: use __bio_add_page to add single page
The raid5 log metadata submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c index 46182b955aef..852b265c5db4 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c @@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ static struct r5l_io_unit *r5l_new_meta(struct r5l_log *log) io->current_bio = r5l_bio_alloc(log); io->current_bio->bi_end_io = r5l_log_endio; io->current_bio->bi_private = io; - bio_add_page(io->current_bio, io->meta_page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); + __bio_add_page(io->current_bio, io->meta_page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); r5_reserve_log_entry(log, io); -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 02/19] drbd: use __bio_add_page to add page to bio
The drbd code only adds a single page to a newly created bio. So use __bio_add_page() to add the page which is guaranteed to succeed in this case. This brings us closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c | 8 +--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c index 289876ffbc31..c542dcf8c457 100644 --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c @@ -1043,9 +1043,11 @@ static void bm_page_io_async(struct drbd_bm_aio_ctx *ctx, int page_nr) __must_ho bio = bio_alloc_bioset(device->ldev->md_bdev, 1, op, GFP_NOIO, &drbd_md_io_bio_set); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = on_disk_sector; - /* bio_add_page of a single page to an empty bio will always succeed, -* according to api. Do we want to assert that? */ - bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0); + /* +* __bio_add_page of a single page to an empty bio will always succeed, +* according to api. Do we want to assert that? +*/ + __bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0); bio->bi_private = ctx; bio->bi_end_io = drbd_bm_endio; -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 13/19] zram: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
The zram writeback code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c index aa490da3cef2..9179bd0f248c 100644 --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c @@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ static ssize_t writeback_store(struct device *dev, REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC); bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = blk_idx * (PAGE_SIZE >> 9); - bio_add_page(&bio, bvec.bv_page, bvec.bv_len, + __bio_add_page(&bio, bvec.bv_page, bvec.bv_len, bvec.bv_offset); /* * XXX: A single page IO would be inefficient for write -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 14/19] floppy: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
The floppy code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/block/floppy.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c index 487840e3564d..6f46a30f7c36 100644 --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c @@ -4147,7 +4147,7 @@ static int __floppy_read_block_0(struct block_device *bdev, int drive) cbdata.drive = drive; bio_init(&bio, bdev, &bio_vec, 1, REQ_OP_READ); - bio_add_page(&bio, page, block_size(bdev), 0); + __bio_add_page(&bio, page, block_size(bdev), 0); bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = 0; bio.bi_flags |= (1 << BIO_QUIET); -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 19/19] block: mark bio_add_page as __must_check
Now that all users of bio_add_page check for the return value, mark bio_add_page as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- include/linux/bio.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h index d766be7152e1..0f8a8d7a6384 100644 --- a/include/linux/bio.h +++ b/include/linux/bio.h @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ extern void bio_uninit(struct bio *); void bio_reset(struct bio *bio, struct block_device *bdev, blk_opf_t opf); void bio_chain(struct bio *, struct bio *); -int bio_add_page(struct bio *, struct page *, unsigned len, unsigned off); +int __must_check bio_add_page(struct bio *, struct page *, unsigned len, unsigned off); bool bio_add_folio(struct bio *, struct folio *, size_t len, size_t off); extern int bio_add_pc_page(struct request_queue *, struct bio *, struct page *, unsigned int, unsigned int); -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 18/19] dm-crypt: check if adding pages to clone bio fails
Check if adding pages to clone bio fails and if bail out.
This way we can mark bio_add_pages as __must_check.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn
---
drivers/md/dm-crypt.c | 9 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
index 3ba53dc3cc3f..19f7e087c6df 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
@@ -1693,7 +1693,14 @@ static struct bio *crypt_alloc_buffer(struct dm_crypt_io
*io, unsigned int size)
len = (remaining_size > PAGE_SIZE) ? PAGE_SIZE : remaining_size;
- bio_add_page(clone, page, len, 0);
+ if (!bio_add_page(clone, page, len, 0)) {
+ mempool_free(page, &cc->page_pool);
+ crypt_free_buffer_pages(cc, clone);
+ bio_put(clone);
+ gfp_mask |= __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
+ goto retry;
+
+ }
remaining_size -= len;
}
--
2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 15/19] md: check for failure when adding pages in alloc_behind_master_bio
alloc_behind_master_bio() can possibly add multiple pages to a bio, but it is not checking for the return value of bio_add_page() if adding really succeeded. Check if the page adding succeeded and if not bail out. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/md/raid1.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c index 68a9e2d9985b..bd7c339a84a1 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c @@ -1147,7 +1147,8 @@ static void alloc_behind_master_bio(struct r1bio *r1_bio, if (unlikely(!page)) goto free_pages; - bio_add_page(behind_bio, page, len, 0); + if (!bio_add_page(behind_bio, page, len, 0)) + goto free_pages; size -= len; i++; -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 08/19] btrfs: repair: use __bio_add_page for adding single page
The btrfs repair bio submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- fs/btrfs/bio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/bio.c b/fs/btrfs/bio.c index 726592868e9c..73220a219c91 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/bio.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/bio.c @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static struct btrfs_failed_bio *repair_one_sector(struct btrfs_bio *failed_bbio, repair_bio = bio_alloc_bioset(NULL, 1, REQ_OP_READ, GFP_NOFS, &btrfs_repair_bioset); repair_bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = failed_bbio->saved_iter.bi_sector; - bio_add_page(repair_bio, bv->bv_page, bv->bv_len, bv->bv_offset); + __bio_add_page(repair_bio, bv->bv_page, bv->bv_len, bv->bv_offset); repair_bbio = btrfs_bio(repair_bio); btrfs_bio_init(repair_bbio, failed_bbio->inode, NULL, fbio); -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 16/19] md: raid1: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
The sync request code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/md/raid1.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c index bd7c339a84a1..c226d293992f 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c @@ -2915,7 +2915,7 @@ static sector_t raid1_sync_request(struct mddev *mddev, sector_t sector_nr, * won't fail because the vec table is big * enough to hold all these pages */ - bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0); } } nr_sectors += len>>9; -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 05/19] md: use __bio_add_page to add single page
The md-raid superblock writing code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-of_-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/md/md.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c index 39e49e5d7182..e730c3627d00 100644 --- a/drivers/md/md.c +++ b/drivers/md/md.c @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ void md_super_write(struct mddev *mddev, struct md_rdev *rdev, atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector; - bio_add_page(bio, page, size, 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, page, size, 0); bio->bi_private = rdev; bio->bi_end_io = super_written; @@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ int sync_page_io(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t sector, int size, bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = sector + rdev->new_data_offset; else bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = sector + rdev->data_offset; - bio_add_page(&bio, page, size, 0); + __bio_add_page(&bio, page, size, 0); submit_bio_wait(&bio); -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 11/19] gfs: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
The GFS superblock reading code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c b/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c index 6de901c3b89b..e0cd0d43b12f 100644 --- a/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c +++ b/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static int gfs2_read_super(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp, sector_t sector, int silent) bio = bio_alloc(sb->s_bdev, 1, REQ_OP_READ | REQ_META, GFP_NOFS); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector * (sb->s_blocksize >> 9); - bio_add_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); bio->bi_end_io = end_bio_io_page; bio->bi_private = page; -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 12/19] zonefs: use __bio_add_page for adding single page to bio
The zonefs superblock reading code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- fs/zonefs/super.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/zonefs/super.c b/fs/zonefs/super.c index 23b8b299c64e..9350221abfc5 100644 --- a/fs/zonefs/super.c +++ b/fs/zonefs/super.c @@ -1128,7 +1128,7 @@ static int zonefs_read_super(struct super_block *sb) bio_init(&bio, sb->s_bdev, &bio_vec, 1, REQ_OP_READ); bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = 0; - bio_add_page(&bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); + __bio_add_page(&bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); ret = submit_bio_wait(&bio); if (ret) -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 17/19] md: raid1: check if adding pages to resync bio fails
Check if adding pages to resync bio fails and if bail out.
As the comment above suggests this cannot happen, WARN if it actually
happens.
This way we can mark bio_add_pages as __must_check.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn
---
drivers/md/raid1-10.c | 7 ++-
drivers/md/raid10.c | 12 ++--
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1-10.c b/drivers/md/raid1-10.c
index e61f6cad4e08..c21b6c168751 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid1-10.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid1-10.c
@@ -105,7 +105,12 @@ static void md_bio_reset_resync_pages(struct bio *bio,
struct resync_pages *rp,
* won't fail because the vec table is big
* enough to hold all these pages
*/
- bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0);
+ if (WARN_ON(!bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0))) {
+ bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
+ bio_endio(bio);
+ return;
+ }
+
size -= len;
} while (idx++ < RESYNC_PAGES && size > 0);
}
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
index 6c66357f92f5..5682dba52fd3 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
@@ -3808,7 +3808,11 @@ static sector_t raid10_sync_request(struct mddev *mddev,
sector_t sector_nr,
* won't fail because the vec table is big enough
* to hold all these pages
*/
- bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0);
+ if (WARN_ON(!bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0))) {
+ bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
+ bio_endio(bio);
+ goto giveup;
+ }
}
nr_sectors += len>>9;
sector_nr += len>>9;
@@ -4989,7 +4993,11 @@ static sector_t reshape_request(struct mddev *mddev,
sector_t sector_nr,
* won't fail because the vec table is big enough
* to hold all these pages
*/
- bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0);
+ if (WARN_ON(!bio_add_page(bio, page, len, 0))) {
+ bio->bi_status = BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
+ bio_endio(bio);
+ return sectors_done; /* XXX: is this correct? */
+ }
}
sector_nr += len >> 9;
nr_sectors += len >> 9;
--
2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 09/19] btrfs: raid56: use __bio_add_page to add single page
The btrfs raid58 sector submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c index 642828c1b299..c8173e003df6 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c @@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static int rbio_add_io_sector(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = disk_start >> 9; bio->bi_private = rbio; - bio_add_page(bio, sector->page, sectorsize, sector->pgoff); + __bio_add_page(bio, sector->page, sectorsize, sector->pgoff); bio_list_add(bio_list, bio); return 0; } -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 03/19] dm: dm-zoned: use __bio_add_page for adding single metadata page
dm-zoned uses bio_add_page() for adding a single page to a freshly created metadata bio. Use __bio_add_page() instead as adding a single page to a new bio is always guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() __must_check Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- drivers/md/dm-zoned-metadata.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-zoned-metadata.c b/drivers/md/dm-zoned-metadata.c index cf9402064aba..8dbe102ab271 100644 --- a/drivers/md/dm-zoned-metadata.c +++ b/drivers/md/dm-zoned-metadata.c @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static struct dmz_mblock *dmz_get_mblock_slow(struct dmz_metadata *zmd, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = dmz_blk2sect(block); bio->bi_private = mblk; bio->bi_end_io = dmz_mblock_bio_end_io; - bio_add_page(bio, mblk->page, DMZ_BLOCK_SIZE, 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, mblk->page, DMZ_BLOCK_SIZE, 0); submit_bio(bio); return mblk; @@ -728,7 +728,7 @@ static int dmz_write_mblock(struct dmz_metadata *zmd, struct dmz_mblock *mblk, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = dmz_blk2sect(block); bio->bi_private = mblk; bio->bi_end_io = dmz_mblock_bio_end_io; - bio_add_page(bio, mblk->page, DMZ_BLOCK_SIZE, 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, mblk->page, DMZ_BLOCK_SIZE, 0); submit_bio(bio); return 0; @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ static int dmz_rdwr_block(struct dmz_dev *dev, enum req_op op, bio = bio_alloc(dev->bdev, 1, op | REQ_SYNC | REQ_META | REQ_PRIO, GFP_NOIO); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = dmz_blk2sect(block); - bio_add_page(bio, page, DMZ_BLOCK_SIZE, 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, page, DMZ_BLOCK_SIZE, 0); ret = submit_bio_wait(bio); bio_put(bio); -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 07/19] md: raid5: use __bio_add_page to add single page to new bio
The raid5-ppl submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a
newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never
checked. For adding consecutive pages, the return is actually checked and
a new bio is allocated if adding the page fails.
Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is
guaranteed to succeed.
This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn
---
drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c b/drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c
index e495939bb3e0..eaea57aee602 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ static void ppl_submit_iounit(struct ppl_io_unit *io)
bio->bi_end_io = ppl_log_endio;
bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = log->next_io_sector;
- bio_add_page(bio, io->header_page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
+ __bio_add_page(bio, io->header_page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
pr_debug("%s: log->current_io_sector: %llu\n", __func__,
(unsigned long long)log->next_io_sector);
@@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ static void ppl_submit_iounit(struct ppl_io_unit *io)
prev->bi_opf, GFP_NOIO,
&ppl_conf->bs);
bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = bio_end_sector(prev);
- bio_add_page(bio, sh->ppl_page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
+ __bio_add_page(bio, sh->ppl_page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
bio_chain(bio, prev);
ppl_submit_iounit_bio(io, prev);
--
2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 04/19] fs: buffer: use __bio_add_page to add single page to bio
The buffer_head submission code uses bio_add_page() to add a page to a newly created bio. bio_add_page() can fail, but the return value is never checked. Use __bio_add_page() as adding a single page to a newly created bio is guaranteed to succeed. This brings us a step closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- fs/buffer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c index 9e1e2add541e..855dc41fe162 100644 --- a/fs/buffer.c +++ b/fs/buffer.c @@ -2733,7 +2733,7 @@ static void submit_bh_wbc(blk_opf_t opf, struct buffer_head *bh, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = bh->b_blocknr * (bh->b_size >> 9); - bio_add_page(bio, bh->b_page, bh->b_size, bh_offset(bh)); + __bio_add_page(bio, bh->b_page, bh->b_size, bh_offset(bh)); BUG_ON(bio->bi_iter.bi_size != bh->b_size); bio->bi_end_io = end_bio_bh_io_sync; -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 01/19] swap: use __bio_add_page to add page to bio
The swap code only adds a single page to a newly created bio. So use __bio_add_page() to add the page which is guaranteed to succeed in this case. This brings us closer to marking bio_add_page() as __must_check. Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn --- mm/page_io.c | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c index 87b682d18850..684cd3c7b59b 100644 --- a/mm/page_io.c +++ b/mm/page_io.c @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static void swap_writepage_bdev_sync(struct page *page, bio_init(&bio, sis->bdev, &bv, 1, REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SWAP | wbc_to_write_flags(wbc)); bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = swap_page_sector(page); - bio_add_page(&bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); + __bio_add_page(&bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); bio_associate_blkg_from_page(&bio, page); count_swpout_vm_event(page); @@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ static void swap_writepage_bdev_async(struct page *page, GFP_NOIO); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = swap_page_sector(page); bio->bi_end_io = end_swap_bio_write; - bio_add_page(bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); bio_associate_blkg_from_page(bio, page); count_swpout_vm_event(page); @@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ static void swap_readpage_bdev_sync(struct page *page, bio_init(&bio, sis->bdev, &bv, 1, REQ_OP_READ); bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = swap_page_sector(page); - bio_add_page(&bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); + __bio_add_page(&bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); /* * Keep this task valid during swap readpage because the oom killer may * attempt to access it in the page fault retry time check. @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static void swap_readpage_bdev_async(struct page *page, bio = bio_alloc(sis->bdev, 1, REQ_OP_READ, GFP_KERNEL); bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = swap_page_sector(page); bio->bi_end_io = end_swap_bio_read; - bio_add_page(bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); + __bio_add_page(bio, page, thp_size(page), 0); count_vm_event(PSWPIN); submit_bio(bio); } -- 2.39.2
[Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 39/48] dlm: Use sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES) rather than sendpage
When transmitting data, call down a layer using a single sendmsg with
MSG_SPLICE_PAGES to indicate that content should be spliced rather using
sendpage. This allows ->sendpage() to be replaced by something that can
handle multiple multipage folios in a single transaction.
Signed-off-by: David Howells
cc: Christine Caulfield
cc: David Teigland
cc: "David S. Miller"
cc: Eric Dumazet
cc: Jakub Kicinski
cc: Paolo Abeni
cc: Jens Axboe
cc: Matthew Wilcox
cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com
cc: net...@vger.kernel.org
---
fs/dlm/lowcomms.c | 10 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
index a9b14f81d655..9c0c691b6106 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
@@ -1394,8 +1394,11 @@ int dlm_lowcomms_resend_msg(struct dlm_msg *msg)
/* Send a message */
static int send_to_sock(struct connection *con)
{
- const int msg_flags = MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_NOSIGNAL;
struct writequeue_entry *e;
+ struct bio_vec bvec;
+ struct msghdr msg = {
+ .msg_flags = MSG_SPLICE_PAGES | MSG_DONTWAIT | MSG_NOSIGNAL,
+ };
int len, offset, ret;
spin_lock_bh(&con->writequeue_lock);
@@ -1411,8 +1414,9 @@ static int send_to_sock(struct connection *con)
WARN_ON_ONCE(len == 0 && e->users == 0);
spin_unlock_bh(&con->writequeue_lock);
- ret = kernel_sendpage(con->sock, e->page, offset, len,
- msg_flags);
+ bvec_set_page(&bvec, e->page, len, offset);
+ iov_iter_bvec(&msg.msg_iter, ITER_SOURCE, &bvec, 1, len);
+ ret = sock_sendmsg(con->sock, &msg);
trace_dlm_send(con->nodeid, ret);
if (ret == -EAGAIN || ret == 0) {
lock_sock(con->sock->sk);
