Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190410040826.24371-1-pagupta@redhat.com> <20190410040826.24371-2-pagupta@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4i1FjBzfcWtzeCvj-giHa9xaX0dMQ==q4LZC_L8VEqkHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190412083230.GA29850@quack2.suse.cz> <x494l73z7th.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4jrNHqW3FuGkeo==ZoJr7LKahCv4_esnokfy7enek8=2Q@mail.gmail.com> <20190418161833.GA22970@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190418161833.GA22970@infradead.org>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:14:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jPOF_+R6U17J_+88+X8LC-LSPCugA6gbKxuphuuFB2gg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] libnvdimm: nd_region flush callback support
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@redhat.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Qemu Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@kernel.org>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        lcapitulino@redhat.com, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
        Nitesh Narayan Lal <nilal@redhat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        david <david@fromorbit.com>, cohuck@redhat.com,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kilobyte@angband.pl,
        yuval shaia <yuval.shaia@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 9:18 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.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 agree with not doing premature optimization in
principle, but this hack is minimally intrusive from a readability
perspective similar to likely()/unlikely() usage which also don't come
with numbers on a per patch basis.