Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] fs, block: copy_file_range for def_blk_ops for direct block device.
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Date: 2023-03-29 12:15:01
Also in:
dm-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-nvme, lkml
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:10:52PM +0530, Anuj Gupta wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Nitesh Shetty <redacted> For direct block device opened with O_DIRECT, use copy_file_range to issue device copy offload, and fallback to generic_copy_file_range incase device copy offload capability is absent. Modify checks to allow bdevs to use copy_file_range. Suggested-by: Ming Lei <redacted> Signed-off-by: Anuj Gupta <redacted> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <redacted> --- block/blk-lib.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ block/fops.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ fs/read_write.c | 11 +++++++++-- include/linux/blkdev.h | 3 +++ 4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c index a21819e59b29..c288573c7e77 100644 --- a/block/blk-lib.c +++ b/block/blk-lib.c@@ -475,6 +475,28 @@ static inline bool blk_check_copy_offload(struct request_queue *q_in, return blk_queue_copy(q_in) && blk_queue_copy(q_out); } +int blkdev_copy_offload(struct block_device *bdev_in, loff_t pos_in, + struct block_device *bdev_out, loff_t pos_out, size_t len, + cio_iodone_t end_io, void *private, gfp_t gfp_mask) +{ + struct request_queue *in_q = bdev_get_queue(bdev_in); + struct request_queue *out_q = bdev_get_queue(bdev_out); + int ret = -EINVAL;
Why initialize to -EINVAL if blk_copy_sanity_check() initializes it right away anyway?
+ bool offload = false;
Same thing with initializing offload.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ + ret = blk_copy_sanity_check(bdev_in, pos_in, bdev_out, pos_out, len); + if (ret) + return ret; + + offload = blk_check_copy_offload(in_q, out_q); + if (offload) + ret = __blk_copy_offload(bdev_in, pos_in, bdev_out, pos_out, + len, end_io, private, gfp_mask); + + return ret; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blkdev_copy_offload); + /* * @bdev_in: source block device * @pos_in: source offsetdiff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c index d2e6be4e3d1c..3b7c05831d5c 100644 --- a/block/fops.c +++ b/block/fops.c@@ -611,6 +611,25 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) return ret; } +static ssize_t blkdev_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, + struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, + size_t len, unsigned int flags) +{ + struct block_device *in_bdev = I_BDEV(bdev_file_inode(file_in)); + struct block_device *out_bdev = I_BDEV(bdev_file_inode(file_out)); + int comp_len = 0; + + if ((file_in->f_iocb_flags & IOCB_DIRECT) && + (file_out->f_iocb_flags & IOCB_DIRECT)) + comp_len = blkdev_copy_offload(in_bdev, pos_in, out_bdev, + pos_out, len, NULL, NULL, GFP_KERNEL); + if (comp_len != len) + comp_len = generic_copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in + comp_len, + file_out, pos_out + comp_len, len - comp_len, flags);
I'm not deeply familiar with this code but this looks odd. It at least seems possible that comp_len could be -EINVAL and len 20 at which point you'd be doing len - comp_len aka 20 - 22 = -2 in generic_copy_file_range().