LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan.Brunelle@hp.com,
	arjan@linux.intel.com, dgc@sgi.com, npiggin@suse.de,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] block layer: kmemcheck fixes
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:38:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080208113847.GI15220@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802070940230.2883@woody.linux-foundation.org>

On Thu, Feb 07 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >  	INIT_HLIST_NODE(&rq->hash);
> >  	RB_CLEAR_NODE(&rq->rb_node);
> > -	rq->ioprio = 0;
> > -	rq->buffer = NULL;
> > -	rq->ref_count = 1;
> > -	rq->q = q;
> > -	rq->special = NULL;
> > -	rq->data_len = 0;
> > -	rq->data = NULL;
> > -	rq->nr_phys_segments = 0;
> > -	rq->sense = NULL;
> > -	rq->end_io = NULL;
> > -	rq->end_io_data = NULL;
> > -	rq->completion_data = NULL;
> > -	rq->next_rq = NULL;
> > +	rq->completion_data		= NULL;
> > +	/* rq->elevator_private			*/
> > +	/* rq->elevator_private2		*/
> > +	/* rq->rq_disk				*/
> > +	/* rq->start_time			*/
> > +	rq->nr_phys_segments		= 0;
> > +	/* rq->nr_hw_segments			*/
> > +	rq->ioprio			= 0;
> > +	rq->special			= NULL;
> > +	rq->buffer			= NULL;
> ...
> 
> Can we please just stop doing these one-by-one assignments, and just do 
> something like
> 
> 	memset(rq, 0, sizeof(*rq));
> 	rq->q = q;
> 	rq->ref_count = 1;
> 	INIT_HLIST_NODE(&rq->hash);
> 	RB_CLEAR_NODE(&rq->rb_node);
> 
> instead?
> 
> The memset() is likely faster and smaller than one-by-one assignments 
> anyway, even if the one-by-ones can avoid initializing some field or there 
> ends up being a double initialization..

Looked into this approach and we can't currently do that here, since
some members of the request are being set from blk_alloc_request() and
then from the io scheduler attaching private data to it. So we have to
preserve ->cmd_flags and ->elevator_private and ->elevator_private2 at
least. Now rq_init() is also used for stored requests, so we cannot just
rely on clearing at allocation time.

So I'd prefer being a little conservative here. The below reorders
rq_init() a bit and clears some more members to be on the safer side,
adding comments to why we cannot memset and an associated comment in
blkdev.h.

diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index 4afb39c..fba4ca7 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -102,27 +102,38 @@ struct backing_dev_info *blk_get_backing_dev_info(struct block_device *bdev)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_get_backing_dev_info);
 
+/*
+ * We can't just memset() the structure, since the allocation path
+ * already stored some information in the request.
+ */
 void rq_init(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
 {
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->queuelist);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->donelist);
-
-	rq->errors = 0;
+	rq->q = q;
+	rq->sector = rq->hard_sector = (sector_t) -1;
+	rq->nr_sectors = rq->hard_nr_sectors = 0;
+	rq->current_nr_sectors = rq->hard_cur_sectors = 0;
 	rq->bio = rq->biotail = NULL;
 	INIT_HLIST_NODE(&rq->hash);
 	RB_CLEAR_NODE(&rq->rb_node);
+	rq->rq_disk = NULL;
+	rq->nr_phys_segments = 0;
+	rq->nr_hw_segments = 0;
 	rq->ioprio = 0;
+	rq->special = NULL;
 	rq->buffer = NULL;
+	rq->tag = -1;
+	rq->errors = 0;
 	rq->ref_count = 1;
-	rq->q = q;
-	rq->special = NULL;
+	rq->cmd_len = 0;
+	memset(rq->cmd, 0, sizeof(rq->cmd));
 	rq->data_len = 0;
+	rq->sense_len = 0;
 	rq->data = NULL;
-	rq->nr_phys_segments = 0;
 	rq->sense = NULL;
 	rq->end_io = NULL;
 	rq->end_io_data = NULL;
-	rq->completion_data = NULL;
 	rq->next_rq = NULL;
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index 90392a9..e1888cc 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -137,7 +137,9 @@ enum rq_flag_bits {
 #define BLK_MAX_CDB	16
 
 /*
- * try to put the fields that are referenced together in the same cacheline
+ * try to put the fields that are referenced together in the same cacheline.
+ * if you modify this structure, be sure to check block/blk-core.c:rq_init()
+ * as well!
  */
 struct request {
 	struct list_head queuelist;


-- 
Jens Axboe


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-02-08 11:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-07  9:18 [PATCH 0/8] IO queuing and complete affinity Jens Axboe
2008-02-07  9:18 ` [PATCH 1/8] block: split softirq handling into blk-softirq.c Jens Axboe
2008-02-07  9:18 ` [PATCH 2/8] Add interface for queuing work on a specific CPU Jens Axboe
2008-02-07  9:45   ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-07  9:49     ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 17:44       ` Harvey Harrison
2008-02-11 10:51     ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-02-07  9:19 ` [PATCH 3/8] block: make kblockd_schedule_work() take the queue as parameter Jens Axboe
2008-02-07  9:19 ` [PATCH 4/8] x86: add support for remotely triggering the block softirq Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 10:07   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-07 10:17     ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 10:25       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-07 10:31         ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 10:38           ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-07 14:18             ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 10:49           ` [patch] block layer: kmemcheck fixes Ingo Molnar
2008-02-07 17:42             ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-07 17:55               ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 19:31               ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-07 20:06                 ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-08  1:22               ` David Miller
2008-02-08  1:28                 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-08 15:09                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-08 22:44                   ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-08 22:56                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-08 23:58                       ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-08 11:38               ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-02-07  9:19 ` [PATCH 5/8] x86-64: add support for remotely triggering the block softirq Jens Axboe
2008-02-07  9:19 ` [PATCH 6/8] ia64: " Jens Axboe
2008-02-07  9:19 ` [PATCH 7/8] kernel: add generic softirq interface for triggering a remote softirq Jens Axboe
2008-02-07  9:19 ` [PATCH 8/8] block: add test code for testing CPU affinity Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 15:16 ` [PATCH 0/8] IO queuing and complete affinity Alan D. Brunelle
2008-02-07 18:25 ` IO queuing and complete affinity with threads (was Re: [PATCH 0/8] IO queuing and complete affinity) Jens Axboe
2008-02-07 20:40   ` Alan D. Brunelle
2008-02-08  7:38   ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-08  7:47     ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-08  7:53       ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-08  7:59         ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-08  8:12           ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-08  8:24             ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-08  8:33               ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-11  5:22           ` David Chinner
2008-02-12  8:28             ` Jeremy Higdon

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=20080208113847.GI15220@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=Alan.Brunelle@hp.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dgc@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=penberg@gmail.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [patch] block layer: kmemcheck fixes' \
    /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

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).