Message-ID: <20120523050808.GA29976@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 22:08:08 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tejun@...gle.com>, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Bcache v13 09/16] Bcache: generic utility code

Hey,

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:12:14PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 02:17:06PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> As you can probably tell I'm strongly biased against duplication when
> it's a question of macros vs. duplication - but if we can make the
> commend backend code + wrapper approach work that's even better (smaller
> code size ftw). It'll be tricky to get u64 vs. int64 right, but I'll
> take a stab at it.

Duplication does suck but it's something which can be traded off too.
It's case-by-case, I suppose.

> > Also, sprintf() sucks.
> 
> Yeah, but considering the output is very bounded... you are technically
> correct, but I have a hard time caring. Making it a vsnprintf modifier
> would make that issue go away though. I'll see if I can figure out how
> to do it.

Block layer just fixed a uuid print buffer overflow bug caused by use
of sprintf() - vsnprintf used more delimiters than the code calling it
expected.  When think kind of bugs trigger on stack buffer, they can
be quite a headache.  IMHO it's much more preferable to have an extra
argument to limit buffer size in most cases.

> > This doesn't build.  While loop var decl in for loop is nice, the
> > kernel isn't built in c99 mode.  If you want to enable c99 mode
> > kernel-wide, you're welcome to try but you can't flip that
> > per-component.
> 
> If patches to enable c99 mode would be accepted I'd be happy to work on
> them (provided I can find time, but I doubt it'd be much work).

I don't think it's gonna be acceptable.  There isn't enough benefit at
this point to justify the churn - the only thing I can think of is
loop variable declaration which I don't think is enough.

> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(parse_uuid);
> > 
> > Hmmm... can't we just enforce fixed format used by vsnprintf()?
> 
> I don't follow - vsnprintf() is output, this is input...

Oh, I meant, can't we just require input to use the same exact format
used by vsnprintf().  Kernel being kind on pparameter inputs isn't
necessary and often leads to unexpected bugs anyway and if the format
is fixed, single call to sscanf() is enough.

> > > +	bv->bv_offset = base ? ((unsigned long) base) % PAGE_SIZE : 0;
> > > +	goto start;
> > > +
> > > +	for (; size; bio->bi_vcnt++, bv++) {
> > > +		bv->bv_offset	= 0;
> > > +start:		bv->bv_len	= min_t(size_t, PAGE_SIZE - bv->bv_offset,
> > > +					size);
> > 
> > Please don't do this.
> 
> I don't really get your objection to jumping into the middle of loops...
> sure it shouldn't be the first way you try to write something, but I
> don't see anything inherently wrong with it. IMO it _can_ make the code
> easier to follow.

Easier for whom is the question, I guess.  We have only a couple
different patterns of goto in use in kernel.  When usage deviates from
those, people get annoyed.  It's not like goto is a pretty thing to
begin with.

> > These are now separate patch series, right?  But, please don't use
> > nested functions.  Apart from being very unconventional (does gnu99
> > even allow this?), the implicit outer scope access is dangerous when
> > mixed with context bouncing which is rather common in kernel.  We
> > (well, at least I) actually want cross stack frame accesses to be
> > explicit.
> 
> Yes. I took out the nested function in the newer version (I never liked
> the way allocation worked in the old code and I finally figured out a
> sane way of doing it).
> 
> What do you mean by context bouncing? IME the problem with nested
> functions in the kernel is the trampolines gcc can silently generate
> (which is a serious problem).

I meant async execution.  e.g. Passing nested function to workqueue.
By the time the nested function executes the parent frame is already
gone.

> > How are these different from bitmap_weight()?
> 
> No important difference, I just never saw bitmap_weight() before - I'll
> switch to that. (These are faster, but bigger and in the kernel I highly
> doubt we've a workload where the performance of popcount justifies the
> extra memory).

I don't think these will be actually faster.  bitmap_weight() is
pretty heavily optimized with constant shortcuts and arch dependent
implementations.

> > > +static inline void SET_##name(type *k, uint64_t v)		\
> > > +{								\
> > > +	k->field &= ~(~((uint64_t) ~0 << size) << offset);	\
> > > +	k->field |= v << offset;				\
> > > +}
> > 
> > More function defining macros.
> 
> This one I'm not getting rid of unless you know a better way of doing it
> than I do - I use it all over the place and well, duplication.

I think that macro abuses tend to lead to worse code in general.
Exotic stuff becomes less painful with magic macros which in turn make
people use magic stuff even when more conventional mechanisms can do.
Maybe these are simple enough.  Maybe, I don't know.

> > > +#define DECLARE_HEAP(type, name)					\
> > > +	struct {							\
> > > +		size_t size, used;					\
> > > +		type *data;						\
> > > +	} name
> > > +
> > > +#define init_heap(heap, _size, gfp)					\
> > 
> > Ummm.... so, essentially templates done in macros.  Please don't do
> > that.  Definitely NACK on this.
> 
> I have a passionate... dislike of templates, but do you have any
> alternatives? I don't know any other way of implementing this that
> doesn't give up typechecking, and especially for the fifo code that
> typechecking is just too important to give up.

Unsure but either giving up type safety or implementing logic as
functions and wrap them with macros doing typechecks would be better.
Can't you use the existing prio_tree or prio_heap?

> > Is this *really* necessary?
> 
> This one might be excessive - but if we can implement memparse() +
> variable limit correctly that would certainly get rid of this.

Is type-dependent variable limit really necessary?  A lot of sysfs and
other interface doesn't care about input validation as long as it
doesn't break kernel.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists