Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] block/nfs: try to avoid the bounce buffer in pwritev

[Jeff Cody]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 01:47:10PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 17.02.2017 um 22:51 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 03:42:52PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > On 02/17/2017 03:37 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > > >> if the passed qiov contains exactly one iov we can
> > > >> pass the buffer directly.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>  block/nfs.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
> > > >>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/block/nfs.c b/block/nfs.c
> > > >> index ab5dcc2..bb4b75f 100644
> > > >> --- a/block/nfs.c
> > > >> +++ b/block/nfs.c
> > > >> @@ -295,20 +295,27 @@ static int coroutine_fn 
> > > >> nfs_co_pwritev(BlockDriverState *bs, uint64_t offset,
> > > >>      NFSClient *client = bs->opaque;
> > > >>      NFSRPC task;
> > > >>      char *buf = NULL;
> > > >> +    bool my_buffer = false;
> > > > 
> > > > g_free() is a nop if buf is NULL, so there is no need for the my_buffer
> > > > variable & check.
> > > 
> > > Umm, yes there is:
> > > 
> > > >> +    if (iov->niov != 1) {
> > > >> +        buf = g_try_malloc(bytes);
> > > >> +        if (bytes && buf == NULL) {
> > > >> +            return -ENOMEM;
> > > >> +        }
> > > >> +        qemu_iovec_to_buf(iov, 0, buf, bytes);
> > > >> +        my_buffer = true;
> > > >> +    } else {
> > > >> +        buf = iov->iov[0].iov_base;
> > > 
> > > If we took the else branch, then we definitely do not want to be calling
> > > g_free(buf).
> > 
> > Doh!
> > 
> > > 
> > > >>      }
> > > >>  
> > > >> -    qemu_iovec_to_buf(iov, 0, buf, bytes);
> > > >> -
> > > >>      if (nfs_pwrite_async(client->context, client->fh,
> > > >>                           offset, bytes, buf,
> > > >>                           nfs_co_generic_cb, &task) != 0) {
> > > >> -        g_free(buf);
> > > >> +        if (my_buffer) {
> > > >> +            g_free(buf);
> > > >> +        }
> > > 
> > > It looks correct as-is to me.
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jeff Cody <address@hidden>
> 
> You gave R-b for both patches, but did not merge it - who is supposed to
> do that?
>

I am going to do it in my next round, I was just waiting to see if there
were any other comments.