[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c4b3d6f-64b7-4ba3-8d2e-d8b1f1a03a53@ieee.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 11:05:30 -0600
From: Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
To: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com>, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
Cc: ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] rbd: convert timeouts to secs_to_jiffies()
On 2/28/25 10:22 PM, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
> Commit b35108a51cf7 ("jiffies: Define secs_to_jiffies()") introduced
> secs_to_jiffies(). As the value here is a multiple of 1000, use
> secs_to_jiffies() instead of msecs_to_jiffies() to avoid the multiplication
>
> This is converted using scripts/coccinelle/misc/secs_to_jiffies.cocci with
> the following Coccinelle rules:
>
> @depends on patch@ expression E; @@
>
> -msecs_to_jiffies(E * 1000)
> +secs_to_jiffies(E)
>
> @depends on patch@ expression E; @@
>
> -msecs_to_jiffies(E * MSEC_PER_SEC)
> +secs_to_jiffies(E)
>
> Change the check for range to check against HZ.
>
> Acked-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
I think what you've done in the last hunk below should not be
done that way. I also suggest something to the (related, but
not part of this series) secs_to_jiffies() implementation.
> ---
> drivers/block/rbd.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> index faafd7ff43d6ef53110ab3663cc7ac322214cc8c..1c406b17f3cee741b7bdd9f742958b3f1d5b1bbe 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int atomic_dec_return_safe(atomic_t *v)
> #define RBD_OBJ_PREFIX_LEN_MAX 64
>
> #define RBD_NOTIFY_TIMEOUT 5 /* seconds */
> -#define RBD_RETRY_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(1000)
> +#define RBD_RETRY_DELAY secs_to_jiffies(1)
>
> /* Feature bits */
>
> @@ -4162,7 +4162,7 @@ static void rbd_acquire_lock(struct work_struct *work)
> dout("%s rbd_dev %p requeuing lock_dwork\n", __func__,
> rbd_dev);
> mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev->task_wq, &rbd_dev->lock_dwork,
> - msecs_to_jiffies(2 * RBD_NOTIFY_TIMEOUT * MSEC_PER_SEC));
> + secs_to_jiffies(2 * RBD_NOTIFY_TIMEOUT));
> }
> }
>
> @@ -6283,9 +6283,9 @@ static int rbd_parse_param(struct fs_parameter *param,
> break;
> case Opt_lock_timeout:
> /* 0 is "wait forever" (i.e. infinite timeout) */
> - if (result.uint_32 > INT_MAX / 1000)
Previously, the above line was verifying that the multiplication
done below would not overflow. It was unrelated to whatever
msecs_to_jiffies() did.
> + if (result.uint32 > INT_MAX / HZ)
Here you are assuming something about what secs_to_jiffies()
does. It's a very reasonable assumption, but you are encoding
this in unrelated code, which you shouldn't do.
Just do the direct conversion as you've done above:
if (result.uint32 > INT_MAX)
> goto out_of_range;
> - opt->lock_timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(result.uint_32 * 1000);
> + opt->lock_timeout = secs_to_jiffies(result.uint_32);
Unfortunately, secs_to_jiffies() does not implement the clamp
operation that msecs_to_jiffies() does. If you look at
__msecs_to_jiffies() you see that the unsigned value provided
is limited to MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET if it's negative when interpreted
as a signed int (i.e., if its high bit is set).
I think the secs_to_jiffies() implementation could benefit
from the use of an overflow check. This might not be
exactly right, but it gives the idea:
#define secs_to_jiffies(_secs) \
({ \
unsigned long _result; \
\
if (check_mul_overflow(_secs, HZ, &_result)) \
_result = MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET; \
(_result); \
})
-Alex
> break;
> case Opt_pool_ns:
> kfree(pctx->spec->pool_ns);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists