linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] evacuate struct page from the block layer

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:22:03 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] evacuate struct page from the block layer

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com> wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 11:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 03/20/2015 04:31 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> <>
>>> There's a lot of code out there that relies on struct page being PAGE_SIZE
>>> bytes.  I'm cool with replacing 'struct page' with 'struct superpage'
>>> [1] in the biovec and auditing all of the code which touches it ... but
>>> that's going to be a lot of code!  I'm not sure it's less code than
>>> going directly to 'just do I/O on PFNs'.
>>
>> Totally agreed here. I see absolutely no advantage to teaching the
>> IO layer about a "struct superpage" when it could operate on PFNs
>> just as easily.
>>
>
> Or teaching 'struct page' to be variable length, This is already so at
> bio and sg level so you fixed nothing.
>
> Moving to pfn's only means that all this unnamed code above that
> "relies on struct page being PAGE_SIZE" is now not allowed to
> interfaced with bio and sg list. Which in current code and in Dan's patches
> means two tons of BUG_ONS and return -ENOTSUPP . For all these
> subsystems below the bio and sglist that operate on page_structs

I'm not convinced it will be that bad.  In hyperbolic terms,
continuing to overload struct page means we get to let floppy.c do i/o
from pmem, who needs that level of compatibility?

Similar to sg_chain support I think it's fine to let sub-systems /
archs add pmem i/o support over time.  It's a scaling problem our
development model is good at.
--
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/