Message-ID: <863f2cddacac590d581cda09d548ee0a652df8a1.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-blkfront: Use the bitmap API when applicable
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
        sstabellini@kernel.org, roger.pau@citrix.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Cc:     xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 02 Dec 2021 19:03:32 -0800
In-Reply-To: <3d71577f-dabe-6e1a-4b03-2a44f304b702@wanadoo.fr>
References: <1c73cf8eaff02ea19439ec676c063e592d273cfe.1638392965.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
         <c529a221-f444-ad26-11ff-f693401c9429@suse.com>
         <d8f87c17-75d1-2e6b-65e1-23adc75bb515@wanadoo.fr>
         <6fcddba84070c021eb92aa9a5ff15fb2a47e9acb.camel@perches.com>
         <3d71577f-dabe-6e1a-4b03-2a44f304b702@wanadoo.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4-1ubuntu2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 20:07 +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 02/12/2021 ? 19:16, Joe Perches a ?crit?:
> > On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 19:12 +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > Le 02/12/2021 ? 07:12, Juergen Gross a ?crit?:
> > > > On 01.12.21 22:10, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > > > Use 'bitmap_zalloc()' to simplify code, improve the semantic and avoid
> > > > > some open-coded arithmetic in allocator arguments.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also change the corresponding 'kfree()' into 'bitmap_free()' to keep
> > > > > consistency.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Use 'bitmap_copy()' to avoid an explicit 'memcpy()'
> > []
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> > []
> > > > > @@ -442,16 +442,14 @@ static int xlbd_reserve_minors(unsigned int
> > > > > minor, unsigned int nr)
> > > > >  ????? if (end > nr_minors) {
> > > > >  ????????? unsigned long *bitmap, *old;
> > > > > -??????? bitmap = kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(end), sizeof(*bitmap),
> > > > > -???????????????? GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > +??????? bitmap = bitmap_zalloc(end, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >  ????????? if (bitmap == NULL)
> > > > >  ????????????? return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >  ????????? spin_lock(&minor_lock);
> > > > >  ????????? if (end > nr_minors) {
> > > > >  ????????????? old = minors;
> > > > > -??????????? memcpy(bitmap, minors,
> > > > > -?????????????????? BITS_TO_LONGS(nr_minors) * sizeof(*bitmap));
> > > > > +??????????? bitmap_copy(bitmap, minors, nr_minors);
> > > > >  ????????????? minors = bitmap;
> > > > >  ????????????? nr_minors = BITS_TO_LONGS(end) * BITS_PER_LONG;
> > 
> > 		nr_minors = end;
> > ?
> > 
> 
> No,
> My understanding of the code is that if we lack space (end > nr_minors), 
> we need to allocate more. In such a case, we want to keep track of what 
> we have allocated, not what we needed.
> The "padding" bits in the "long align" allocation, can be used later.

> 
> first call
> ----------
> end = 65
> nr_minors = 63
> 
> --> we need some space
> --> we allocate 2 longs = 128 bits
> --> we now use 65 bits of these 128 bits

or 96, 32 or 64 bit longs remember.

> 
> new call
> --------
> end = 68
> nr_minors = 128 (from previous call)

The initial allocation is now bitmap_zalloc which
specifies only bits and the nr_minors is then in
BITS_TO_LONGS(bits) * BITS_PER_LONG

Perhaps that assumes too much about the internal
implementation of bitmap_alloc