| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140224083151.GA2384@swordfish.minsk.epam.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:31:52 +0300
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 3/6] zram: factor out single stream compression
Hello Minchan,
thanks for your review.
On (02/24/14 11:31), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello Sergey,
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:40PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > This is preparation patch to add multi stream support to zcomp.
> >
> > Introduce struct zcomp_strm_single and a set of functions to manage zcomp_strm
> > stream access. zcomp_strm_single implements single compession stream, same way
> > as current zcomp implementation. This moves zcomp_strm stream control and
> > locking from zcomp, so compressing backend zcomp is not aware of required
> > locking (single and multi streams require different locking schemes).
> >
> > The following set of functions added:
> > - zcomp_strm_single_get()/zcomp_strm_single_put()
> > get and put compression stream, implement required locking
> > - zcomp_strm_single_create()/zcomp_strm_single_destroy()
> > create and destroy zcomp_strm_single
> >
> > New ->strm_get() and ->strm_put() callbacks added to zcomp, which are set to
> > zcomp_strm_single_get() and zcomp_strm_single_put() during initialisation.
> > Instead of direct locking and zcomp_strm access from zcomp_strm_get() and
> > zcomp_strm_put(), zcomp now calls ->strm_get() and ->strm_put()
> > correspondingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
>
> It's actually not what I expect.
> What I want was to separate implementation to different files
> whether it enalbles CONFIG_ZRAM_ZCOMP_MULTI or not so that
> popular users who want to use zram as only swap with small
> memory system have little side effect about performance and
> code size.
am I right to guess that you multi stream implementation replaces single
stream. in other words, CONFIG_ZRAM_ZCOMP_MULTI turns zcomp into just a
multi stream backend?
the reasoning behind this indirection is that it allows us to have
CONFIG_ZRAM_ZCOMP_MULTI as additional functionality. if user selects
CONFIG_ZRAM_ZCOMP_MULTI then there is a possibility for user to have both
single (e.g. if he uses zram as a swap device) and multi implemetation
(e.g. if he also uses it as a compressed block device with fs) on his
system. in other words, user may create N zram devices: one swap device
(with single stream inplementation) and N-1 multi stream.
so CONFIG_ZRAM_ZCOMP_MULTI is additional functionality, not the replacing
one. otherwise, there is a small foot print (IMHO. just several function
pointers, other than that it's just a single stream mutex-based implementation).
sounds sane?
>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > drivers/block/zram/zcomp.h | 7 ++++--
> > 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c b/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c
> > index db72f3d..9661226 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,14 @@
> >
> > #include "zcomp.h"
> >
> > +/*
> > + * single zcomp_strm backend private part
> > + */
> > +struct zcomp_strm_single {
> > + struct mutex strm_lock;
> > + struct zcomp_strm *zstrm;
> > +};
> > +
> > extern struct zcomp_backend zcomp_lzo;
> >
> > static struct zcomp_backend *find_backend(const char *compress)
> > @@ -55,17 +63,58 @@ static struct zcomp_strm *zcomp_strm_alloc(struct zcomp *comp)
> > return zstrm;
> > }
> >
> > +static struct zcomp_strm *zcomp_strm_single_get(struct zcomp *comp)
> > +{
> > + struct zcomp_strm_single *zp = comp->private;
> > + mutex_lock(&zp->strm_lock);
> > + return zp->zstrm;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void zcomp_strm_single_put(struct zcomp *comp, struct zcomp_strm *zstrm)
> > +{
> > + struct zcomp_strm_single *zp = comp->private;
> > + mutex_unlock(&zp->strm_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void zcomp_strm_single_destroy(struct zcomp *comp)
> > +{
> > + struct zcomp_strm_single *zp = comp->private;
> > + zcomp_strm_free(comp, zp->zstrm);
> > + kfree(zp);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int zcomp_strm_single_create(struct zcomp *comp)
> > +{
> > + struct zcomp_strm_single *zp;
> > +
> > + comp->destroy = zcomp_strm_single_destroy;
> > + comp->strm_get = zcomp_strm_single_get;
> > + comp->strm_put = zcomp_strm_single_put;
> > + zp = kmalloc(sizeof(struct zcomp_strm_single), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + comp->private = zp;
> > + if (!zp)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + mutex_init(&zp->strm_lock);
> > + zp->zstrm = zcomp_strm_alloc(comp);
> > + if (!zp->zstrm) {
> > + zcomp_strm_single_destroy(comp);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > struct zcomp_strm *zcomp_strm_get(struct zcomp *comp)
> > {
> > - mutex_lock(&comp->strm_lock);
> > - return comp->zstrm;
> > + return comp->strm_get(comp);
> > }
> >
> > void zcomp_strm_put(struct zcomp *comp, struct zcomp_strm *zstrm)
> > {
> > - mutex_unlock(&comp->strm_lock);
> > + comp->strm_put(comp, zstrm);
> > }
> >
> > +/* compress page */
> > int zcomp_compress(struct zcomp *comp, struct zcomp_strm *zstrm,
> > const unsigned char *src, size_t *dst_len)
> > {
> > @@ -73,6 +122,7 @@ int zcomp_compress(struct zcomp *comp, struct zcomp_strm *zstrm,
> > zstrm->private);
> > }
> >
> > +/* decompress page */
> > int zcomp_decompress(struct zcomp *comp, const unsigned char *src,
> > size_t src_len, unsigned char *dst)
> > {
> > @@ -81,7 +131,7 @@ int zcomp_decompress(struct zcomp *comp, const unsigned char *src,
> >
> > void zcomp_destroy(struct zcomp *comp)
> > {
> > - zcomp_strm_free(comp, comp->zstrm);
> > + comp->destroy(comp);
> > kfree(comp);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -105,10 +155,7 @@ struct zcomp *zcomp_create(const char *compress)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > comp->backend = backend;
> > - mutex_init(&comp->strm_lock);
> > -
> > - comp->zstrm = zcomp_strm_alloc(comp);
> > - if (!comp->zstrm) {
> > + if (zcomp_strm_single_create(comp) != 0) {
> > zcomp_destroy(comp);
> > return NULL;
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.h b/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.h
> > index 5106f8e..8dc1d7f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.h
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zcomp.h
> > @@ -34,9 +34,12 @@ struct zcomp_backend {
> >
> > /* dynamic per-device compression frontend */
> > struct zcomp {
> > - struct mutex strm_lock;
> > - struct zcomp_strm *zstrm;
> > + void *private;
> > struct zcomp_backend *backend;
> > +
> > + struct zcomp_strm *(*strm_get)(struct zcomp *comp);
> > + void (*strm_put)(struct zcomp *comp, struct zcomp_strm *zstrm);
> > + void (*destroy)(struct zcomp *comp);
>
> I don't think we need indirection for get/put/destroy.
> zram_drv.c just calls zcomp_strm_get and zcomp.c could implement it
>
> zcomp_strm_get()
> {
> mutex_lock
> return strm;
> }
>
> and zcomp_multi.c can do it
>
> zcomp_strm_get()
> {
> spin_lock
> spin_unlock
> wait_event
> return strm;
> }
so we have only one option -- it either only single stream based zram or
only multi stream based zram. I can move in this direction.
my implemtation allowed two options:
-- single stream zram
or
-- (CONFIG_ZRAM_ZCOMP_MULTI selected) single stream and multi stream,
depending of user set max_comp_streams.
> It seems that you live in my opposite country(ie, you start to dump patches
> when I am about leaving office so ping-pong gap of patch is at least
> one day round. It makes us collaboration very hard so eaieist method I can
> think is just I can implement my thought by myself but I don't want it.
> You thought this idea firstly and I want that you have all credit although
> it waste our time)
>
> If I made you annoying, I'm really sorry to you.
> Again, thanks for looking at this, Sergey!
>
I really appreciate and value all your input and review. Thank you. And
sorry if it consumes a lot of your time.
-ss
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
>
--
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