[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZML22YJi5vPBDEDj@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:59:37 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
Cc: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tkhai@...ru, vbabka@...e.cz,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, djwong@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org,
paulmck@...nel.org, tytso@....edu, steven.price@....com,
cel@...nel.org, senozhatsky@...omium.org, yujie.liu@...el.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 28/49] dm zoned: dynamically allocate the
dm-zoned-meta shrinker
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 07:20:46PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 7/27/23 17:55, Qi Zheng wrote:
> >>> goto err;
> >>> }
> >>> + zmd->mblk_shrinker->count_objects = dmz_mblock_shrinker_count;
> >>> + zmd->mblk_shrinker->scan_objects = dmz_mblock_shrinker_scan;
> >>> + zmd->mblk_shrinker->seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS;
> >>> + zmd->mblk_shrinker->private_data = zmd;
> >>> +
> >>> + shrinker_register(zmd->mblk_shrinker);
> >>
> >> I fail to see how this new shrinker API is better... Why isn't there a
> >> shrinker_alloc_and_register() function ? That would avoid adding all this code
> >> all over the place as the new API call would be very similar to the current
> >> shrinker_register() call with static allocation.
> >
> > In some registration scenarios, memory needs to be allocated in advance.
> > So we continue to use the previous prealloc/register_prepared()
> > algorithm. The shrinker_alloc_and_register() is just a helper function
> > that combines the two, and this increases the number of APIs that
> > shrinker exposes to the outside, so I choose not to add this helper.
>
> And that results in more code in many places instead of less code + a simple
> inline helper in the shrinker header file...
It's not just a "simple helper" - it's a function that has to take 6
or 7 parameters with a return value that must be checked and
handled.
This was done in the first versions of the patch set - the amount of
code in each caller does not go down and, IMO, was much harder to
read and determine "this is obviously correct" that what we have
now.
> So not adding that super simple
> helper is not exactly the best choice in my opinion.
Each to their own - I much prefer the existing style/API over having
to go look up a helper function every time I want to check some
random shrinker has been set up correctly....
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists