Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] udmabuf: codestyle cleanup

[Huan Yang]

在 2024/8/17 8:58, Kasireddy, Vivek 写道:
> Hi Huan,
>
> > There are some variables in udmabuf_create that are only used inside the
> > loop. Therefore, there is no need to declare them outside the scope.
> > This patch moved it into loop.
> >
> > It is difficult to understand the loop condition of the code that adds
> > folio to the unpin_list.
> >
> > The outer loop of this patch iterates through folios, while the inner
> > loop correctly sets the folio and corresponding offset into the udmabuf
> > starting from the offset. if reach to pgcnt or nr_folios, end of loop.
> >
> > By this, more readable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Huan Yang <link@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> > index 4ec54c60d76c..8f9cb0e2e71a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
> > @@ -296,12 +296,12 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice
> > *device,
> >   			   struct udmabuf_create_list *head,
> >   			   struct udmabuf_create_item *list)
> >   {
> > -	pgoff_t pgoff, pgcnt, pglimit, pgbuf = 0;
> > -	long nr_folios, ret = -EINVAL;
> > +	pgoff_t upgcnt = 0, pglimit, pgbuf = 0;
> > +	long ret = -EINVAL;
> >   	struct file *memfd = NULL;
> >   	struct folio **folios;
> >   	struct udmabuf *ubuf;
> > -	u32 i, j, k, flags;
> > +	u32 i, flags;
> >   	loff_t end;
> >
> >   	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > @@ -315,22 +315,21 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice
> > *device,
> >   			goto err;
> >   		if (!IS_ALIGNED(list[i].size, PAGE_SIZE))
> >   			goto err;
> > -		ubuf->pagecount += list[i].size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > +		upgcnt += list[i].size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >   		if (ubuf->pagecount > pglimit)
> >   			goto err;
> >   	}
> >
> > -	if (!ubuf->pagecount)
> > +	if (!upgcnt)
> >   		goto err;
> >
> > -	ubuf->folios = kvmalloc_array(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*ubuf-
> > > folios),
> > +	ubuf->folios = kvmalloc_array(upgcnt, sizeof(*ubuf->folios),
> >   				      GFP_KERNEL);
> >   	if (!ubuf->folios) {
> >   		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >   		goto err;
> >   	}
> > -	ubuf->offsets = kvcalloc(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*ubuf->offsets),
> > -				 GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	ubuf->offsets = kvcalloc(upgcnt, sizeof(*ubuf->offsets),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> >   	if (!ubuf->offsets) {
> >   		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >   		goto err;
> > @@ -338,6 +337,10 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice
> > *device,
> >
> >   	pgbuf = 0;
> >   	for (i = 0; i < head->count; i++) {
> > +		pgoff_t pgoff, pgcnt;
> > +		u32 j, cnt;
> > +		long nr_folios;
> > +
> >   		memfd = fget(list[i].memfd);
> >   		ret = check_memfd_seals(memfd);
> >   		if (ret < 0)
> > @@ -351,38 +354,36 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice
> > *device,
> >   		}
> >
> >   		end = list[i].offset + (pgcnt << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1;
> > -		ret = memfd_pin_folios(memfd, list[i].offset, end,
> > -				       folios, pgcnt, &pgoff);
> > -		if (ret <= 0) {
> > +		nr_folios = memfd_pin_folios(memfd, list[i].offset, end,
> > folios,
> > +					     pgcnt, &pgoff);
> > +		if (nr_folios <= 0) {
> >   			kvfree(folios);
> > -			if (!ret)
> > -				ret = -EINVAL;
> > +			ret = nr_folios ? nr_folios : -EINVAL;
> >   			goto err;
> >   		}
> >
> > -		nr_folios = ret;
> > -		pgoff >>= PAGE_SHIFT;
> > -		for (j = 0, k = 0; j < pgcnt; j++) {
> > -			ubuf->folios[pgbuf] = folios[k];
> > -			ubuf->offsets[pgbuf] = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > -
> > -			if (j == 0 || ubuf->folios[pgbuf-1] != folios[k]) {
> > -				ret = add_to_unpin_list(&ubuf->unpin_list,
> > -							folios[k]);
> > -				if (ret < 0) {
> > -					kfree(folios);
> > -					goto err;
> > -				}
> I can see that having a loop that iterates from 0 to nr_folios is more intuitive
> compared to the previous version which was a legacy carryover.
>
> > +		for (j = 0, cnt = 0; j < nr_folios; ++j, pgoff = 0) {
> Can all the code in this outer loop be moved into a separate function? This
> would reduce the length of udmabuf_create().
I'll try this in next version
> > +			u32 k;
> > +			long fsize = folio_size(folios[j]);
> > +
> > +			ret = add_to_unpin_list(&ubuf->unpin_list, folios[j]);
> > +			if (ret < 0) {
> > +				kfree(folios);
> > +				goto err;
> >   			}
> >
> > -			pgbuf++;
> > -			if (++pgoff == folio_nr_pages(folios[k])) {
> > -				pgoff = 0;
> > -				if (++k == nr_folios)
> > -					break;
> > +			for (k = pgoff; k < fsize; k += PAGE_SIZE) {
> I think renaming k to something like subpgoff or tailpgoff would make this
> more easier to understand.
Yes.
> > +				ubuf->folios[pgbuf] = folios[j];
> > +				ubuf->offsets[pgbuf] = k;
> > +				++pgbuf;
> > +
> > +				if (++cnt >= pgcnt)
> > +					goto end;
> >   			}
> >   		}
> > -
> > +end:
> > +		// update the number of pages that have already been set
> > up.
> > +		ubuf->pagecount += pgcnt;
> Since pgbuf also reflects the total number of pages (or folios) processed,
> I think you can use that instead of having to mess with pagecount.
Yes, but need take care of when into error, ubuf->pagecount also need 
update or else, deinit in error path will also "errorr"
> Thanks,
> Vivek
>
> >   		kvfree(folios);
> >   		fput(memfd);
> >   		memfd = NULL;
> > --
> > 2.45.2