Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946173AbbHGS5g (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:57:36 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:36738 "EHLO mail-io0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945911AbbHGS5e (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:57:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1438782403-29496-1-git-send-email-ddstreet@ieee.org> <1438782403-29496-3-git-send-email-ddstreet@ieee.org> <20150807063056.GG1891@swordfish> From: Dan Streetman Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:57:14 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8GGFRSSwMCAwzu2-x-G0oAD2yd8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] zswap: dynamic pool creation To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Seth Jennings , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , linux-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3852 Lines: 124 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Dan Streetman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On (08/05/15 09:46), Dan Streetman wrote: >> [..] >>> -enum comp_op { >>> - ZSWAP_COMPOP_COMPRESS, >>> - ZSWAP_COMPOP_DECOMPRESS >>> +struct zswap_pool { >>> + struct zpool *zpool; >>> + struct kref kref; >>> + struct list_head list; >>> + struct rcu_head rcu_head; >>> + struct notifier_block notifier; >>> + char tfm_name[CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME]; >> >> do you need to keep a second CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME copy? shouldn't it >> be `tfm->__crt_alg->cra_name`, which is what >> crypto_tfm_alg_name(struct crypto_tfm *tfm) >> does? > > well, we don't absolutely have to keep a copy of tfm_name. However, > ->tfm is a __percpu variable, so each time we want to check the pool's > tfm name, we would need to do: > crypto_comp_name(this_cpu_ptr(pool->tfm)) > > nothing wrong with that really, just adds a bit more code each time we > want to check the tfm name. I'll send a patch to change it. i knew there was a reason i added the tfm_name ;-) since ->tfm is a percpu, we add a notifier for added/removed cpus. when a cpu is added, we create a new tfm for it. If we don't have the tfm_name separate from the percpu ->tfm, we have to check some other cpu's tfm for its name, and i don't think the complexity of checking what cpus are present *and* have a ->tfm allocated already just to get the name is worth it, for only 64 bytes ;-) > >> >>> + struct crypto_comp * __percpu *tfm; >>> }; >> >> ->tfm will be access pretty often, right? did you intentionally put it >> at the bottom offset of `struct zswap_pool'? > > no it wasn't intentional; does moving it up provide a benefit? > >> >> [..] >>> +static struct zswap_pool *__zswap_pool_current(void) >>> { >>> - return totalram_pages * zswap_max_pool_percent / 100 < >>> - DIV_ROUND_UP(zswap_pool_total_size, PAGE_SIZE); >>> + struct zswap_pool *pool; >>> + >>> + pool = list_first_or_null_rcu(&zswap_pools, typeof(*pool), list); >>> + WARN_ON(!pool); >>> + >>> + return pool; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static struct zswap_pool *zswap_pool_current(void) >>> +{ >>> + assert_spin_locked(&zswap_pools_lock); >>> + >>> + return __zswap_pool_current(); >>> +} >> >> this one seems to be used only once. do you want to replace >> that single usage (well, if it's really needed) > > it's actually used twice, in __zswap_pool_empty() and > __zswap_param_set(). The next patch adds __zswap_param_set(). > >> >> WARN_ON(pool == zswap_pool_current()); >> with >> WARN_ON(pool == __zswap_pool_current); >> >> ? >> >> you can then drop zswap_pool_current()... and probably rename >> __zswap_pool_current() to zswap_pool_current(). >> >> -ss >> >>> +static struct zswap_pool *zswap_pool_current_get(void) >>> +{ >>> + struct zswap_pool *pool; >>> + >>> + rcu_read_lock(); >>> + >>> + pool = __zswap_pool_current(); >>> + if (!pool || !zswap_pool_get(pool)) >>> + pool = NULL; >>> + >>> + rcu_read_unlock(); >>> + >>> + return pool; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static struct zswap_pool *zswap_pool_last_get(void) >>> +{ >>> + struct zswap_pool *pool, *last = NULL; >>> + >>> + rcu_read_lock(); >>> + >>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(pool, &zswap_pools, list) >>> + last = pool; >>> + if (!WARN_ON(!last) && !zswap_pool_get(last)) >>> + last = NULL; >>> + >>> + rcu_read_unlock(); >>> + >>> + return last; >>> +} -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/