lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] pstore: Avoid duplicate call of persistent_ram_zap()
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 03:52:34PM +0800, Peng Wang wrote:
> When initialing prz with invalid data in buffer(no PERSISTENT_RAM_SIG),
> function call path is like this:
>
> ramoops_init_prz ->
> |
> |-> persistent_ram_new -> persistent_ram_post_init -> persistent_ram_zap
> |
> |-> persistent_ram_zap
>
> As we can see, persistent_ram_zap() is called twice.
> We can avoid this by adding an option to persistent_ram_new(), and
> only call persistent_ram_zap() when it is needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Wang <wangpeng15@xiaomi.com>
> ---
> fs/pstore/ram.c | 4 +---
> fs/pstore/ram_core.c | 5 +++--
> include/linux/pstore_ram.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> index ffcff6516e89..b51901f97dc2 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> @@ -640,7 +640,7 @@ static int ramoops_init_prz(const char *name,
>
> label = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "ramoops:%s", name);
> *prz = persistent_ram_new(*paddr, sz, sig, &cxt->ecc_info,
> - cxt->memtype, 0, label);
> + cxt->memtype, PRZ_FLAG_ZAP_OLD, label);
> if (IS_ERR(*prz)) {
> int err = PTR_ERR(*prz);

Looks good to me except the minor comment below:

>
> @@ -649,8 +649,6 @@ static int ramoops_init_prz(const char *name,
> return err;
> }
>
> - persistent_ram_zap(*prz);
> -
> *paddr += sz;
>
> return 0;
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> index 12e21f789194..2ededd1ea1c2 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> @@ -505,15 +505,16 @@ static int persistent_ram_post_init(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, u32 sig,
> pr_debug("found existing buffer, size %zu, start %zu\n",
> buffer_size(prz), buffer_start(prz));
> persistent_ram_save_old(prz);
> - return 0;
> + if (!(prz->flags & PRZ_FLAG_ZAP_OLD))
> + return 0;

This could be written differently.

We could just do:

if (prz->flags & PRZ_FLAG_ZAP_OLD)
persistent_ram_zap(prz);

And remove the zap from below below.

Since Kees already took this patch, I can just patch this in my series if
Kees and you are Ok with this suggestion.

Sorry for the delay in my RFC series, I just got back from paternity leave
and I'm catching up with email.

thanks,

- Joel

> }
> } else {
> pr_debug("no valid data in buffer (sig = 0x%08x)\n",
> prz->buffer->sig);
> + prz->buffer->sig = sig;
> }
>
> /* Rewind missing or invalid memory area. */
> - prz->buffer->sig = sig;
> persistent_ram_zap(prz);
>
> return 0;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-30 22:39    [W:0.077 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site