[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 02/14] dm: kill dm_rq_bio_destructor
- From: "Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura ce jp nec com>
- To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, tj kernel org, linux-bcache vger kernel org, mpatocka redhat com, agk redhat com, bharrosh panasas com, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, yehuda hq newdream net, drbd-dev lists linbit com, vgoyal redhat com, sage newdream net
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 02/14] dm: kill dm_rq_bio_destructor
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:16:09 +0900
On 05/24/12 09:39, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:19:12AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
>> The destructor may also be called from blk_rq_unprep_clone(),
>> which just puts bio.
>> So this patch will introduce a memory leak.
>
> Well, keeping around bi_destructor solely for that reason would be
> pretty lousy. Can you come up with a better solution?
I don't have good one but here are some ideas:
a) Do bio_endio() rather than bio_put() in blk_rq_unprep_clone()
and let bi_end_io reap additional data.
It looks ugly.
b) Separate the constructor from blk_rq_prep_clone().
dm has to do rq_for_each_bio loop again for constructor.
Possible performance impact.
c) Open code blk_rq_prep/unprep_clone() in dm.
It exposes unnecessary block-internals to dm.
d) Pass destructor function to blk_rq_prep/unprep_clone()
for them to callback.
Umm, is "d)" better?
--
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]