linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] libnvdimm: nd

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1744824090.22901808.1555992423081.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
To:     Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Qemu Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        lcapitulino@...hat.com, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...hat.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Nitesh Narayan Lal <nilal@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        david <david@...morbit.com>, cohuck@...hat.com,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kilobyte@...band.pl,
        yuval shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] libnvdimm: nd_region flush callback support


> 
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 9:18 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:05:05AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> >> > > > I'd either add a comment about avoiding retpoline overhead here
> >> >> > > > or just
> >> >> > > > make ->flush == NULL mean generic_nvdimm_flush(). Just so that
> >> >> > > > people don't
> >> >> > > > get confused by the code.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Isn't this premature optimization?  I really don't like adding
> >> >> > > things
> >> >> > > like this without some numbers to show it's worth it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't think it's premature given this optimization technique is
> >> >> > already being deployed elsewhere, see:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://lwn.net/Articles/774347/
> >> >>
> >> >> For one this one was backed by numbers, and second after feedback
> >> >> from Linux we switched to the NULL pointer check instead.
> >> >
> >> > Ok I should have noticed the switch to NULL pointer check. However,
> >> > the question still stands do we want everyone to run numbers to
> >> > justify this optimization, or make it a new common kernel coding
> >> > practice to do:
> >> >
> >> >     if (!object->op)
> >> >         generic_op(object);
> >> >     else
> >> >         object->op(object);
> >> >
> >> > ...in hot paths?
> >>
> >> I don't think nvdimm_flush is a hot path.  Numbers of some
> >> representative workload would prove one of us right.
> >
> > I'd rather say that the if "if (!op) do_generic()" pattern is more
> > readable in the general case, saves grepping for who set the op in the
> > common case. The fact that it has the potential to be faster is gravy
> > at that point.
> 
> If the primary motivation is performance, then I'd expect performance
> numbers to back it up.  If that isn't the primary motivation, then
> choose whichever way you feel is appropriate.

Agree. This change enhances the code readability. Will add this change in
v6 with other changes.

Thank you! 

Pankaj

> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>