[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mxt02dr5.fsf@dmon-lap.sw.ru>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:15:42 +0400
From: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Resend: [PATCH] blkdev: fix blkdev_issue_zeroout return value
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> writes:
> On 2010-08-06 12:42, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>> Seems that my first mail was missed somewhere.
>> I've found couple of trivial issues in blkdev_issue_zeroout()
>> implementation. Unfortunately I've miss during initial testing phase
>> because always called it with BARRIER|WAIT flags.
>
> BTW, this:
>
> @@ -218,15 +222,18 @@ submit:
> /* One of bios in the batch was completed with error.*/
> ret = -EIO;
>
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret && ret != -ENOMEM)
> goto out;
>
> if (test_bit(BIO_EOPNOTSUPP, &bb.flags)) {
> ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> goto out;
> }
> - if (nr_sects != 0)
> + if (nr_sects != 0) {
> + if (ret == -ENOMEM)
> + io_schedule();
> goto submit;
> + }
> out:
> return ret;
> }
>
> is broken. Either the caller sets __GFP_WAIT and then bio_alloc() will
> not fail, or GFP_ATOMIC is used knowing that the call can fail and
> return ENOMEM. Don't code in retry logic like this.
Ok, my fault and in fact i've done in explicitly. I just thought
that blk-layer is some times an exception from general GFP_ATOMIC rule
because in some places in blk-layer we stick to GFP_NOFAIL semantics
regardless to actual gfp flags.
New version attached.
View attachment "0001-blkdev-fix-blkdev_issue_zeroout-return-value.patch" of type "text/plain" (1346 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists