linux-kernel - Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node

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:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:03:11 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        zwisler@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for
 queueing on specific NUMA node

On 9/27/2018 12:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:24 AM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> [..]
>>>> - * Returns an async_cookie_t that may be used for checkpointing later.
>>>> - * @domain may be used in the async_synchronize_*_domain() functions to
>>>> - * wait within a certain synchronization domain rather than globally.  A
>>>> - * synchronization domain is specified via @domain.  Note: This function
>>>> - * may be called from atomic or non-atomic contexts.
>>>> + * Device specific version of async_schedule_near_domain that provides some
>>>> + * NUMA awareness based on the device node.
>>>> + */
>>>> +async_cookie_t async_schedule_dev_domain(async_func_t func, struct device *dev,
>>>> +                                        struct async_domain *domain)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       return async_schedule_near_domain(func, dev, dev_to_node(dev), domain);
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule_dev_domain);
>>>
>>> This seems unnecessary and restrictive. Callers may want to pass
>>> something other than dev as the parameter to the async function, and
>>> dev_to_node() is not on onerous burden to place on callers.
>>
>>
>> That is what async_schedule_near_domain is for, they can call that. The
>> "dev" versions of the calls as just supposed to be helpers since one of
>> the most common parameters to the async_schedule calls is a device, so I
>> thought I would just put together a function that takes care of all this
>> for us so I could drop an argument and avoid having to use dev_to_node
>> everywhere.
> 
> Yeah, makes sense, I guess I was reacting to the fact that this
> expands the number of exports unnecessarily. The other async routines
> are exported because they hide internal implementation details of the
> async implementation. The async_schedule_dev* helpers can just be
> static inline wrappers.

I can do them as inline wrappers for the next patch set. Shouldn't be 
too much of an issue.

Thanks.

- Alex