[dm-devel] [PATCH] dm-writecache

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:26:17PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > no business having this around.
> > 
> > It's the default setting of the flag wc->writeback_fua (it can be changed 
> > with target parameters). The flag selects whether the target uses FUA 
> > requests when doing writeback or whether it uses non-FUA requests and 
> > FLUSH afterwards. For some block devices, FUA is faster, for some 
> > nonFUA+FLUSH is faster.
> 
> So just use true as the default flag, adding a name for it in addition
> to the field it is assigned to makes no sense at all.

It makes sense, because all the default values are at one place on the top 
of the file and not scattered through the codebase.

> > > > +#ifndef bio_set_dev
> > > > +#define	bio_set_dev(bio, dev)	((bio)->bi_bdev = (dev))
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +#ifndef timer_setup
> > > > +#define timer_setup(t, c, f)	setup_timer(t, c, (unsigned long)(t))
> > > > +#endif
> > > 
> > > no business in mainline.
> > 
> > People removed dax support for ramdisk in 4.15.
> > 
> > If I need to test it on non-x86 architecture, I need ramdisk as a fake dax 
> > device - and that only works up to 4.14. These defines are for 4.14 
> > compatibility.
> 
> So add them when you backport, or use the existing automated backport
> frameworks.  But do not add dead code to an upstream submission.

I don't intend to backport this driver to stable kernel branches. But I 
can move the file between different machines and test it - it is just 
convenience for me, so that I don't have to patch the file when moving it 
around. It helps me and it doesn't harm anyone else, so what's the problem 
with it?

> > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
> > > > +#define NT_STORE(dest, src)				\
> > > > +do {							\
> > > > +	typeof(src) val = (src);			\
> > > > +	memcpy_flushcache(&(dest), &val, sizeof(src));	\
> > > > +} while (0)
> > > > +#define COMMIT_FLUSHED()	wmb()
> > > > +#else
> > > > +#define NT_STORE(dest, src)	WRITE_ONCE(dest, src)
> > > > +#define FLUSH_RANGE		dax_flush
> > > > +#define COMMIT_FLUSHED()	do { } while (0)
> > > > +#endif
> > > 
> > > Please use proper APIs for this, this has no business in a driver.
> > > 
> > > And that's it for now.  This is clearly not submission ready, and I
> > > should got back to my backlog of other things.
> > 
> > Why is memcpy_flushcache and dax_flush "improper"? What should I use 
> > instead of them?
> 
> They are proper and should be used directly instead of through your
> hacky macros.

On x86-64, memcpy_flushcache is faster than dax_flush.
On ARM64, dax_flush is faster than memcpy_flushcache.

So what should I do? I need to differentiate them based on architecture.

Do you argue that instead of one "#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64)" at the top 
of the file we many more "#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64)" lines all over the 
file - just, because you don't like #defines?

Currently, we can change one line of source code to switch between these 
two functions and benchmark which one performs better on a particular 
processor. Once these macros are deleted, the switch will not be possible.

Mikulas