Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 01:44:15 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/32] mm: Bring back vmalloc_exec
Message-ID: <ZFyAr/9L3neIWpF8@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230509165657.1735798-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <20230509165657.1735798-8-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <ZFqxEWqD19eHe353@infradead.org>
 <ZFq3SdSBJ_LWsOgd@murray>
 <20230509214319.GA858791@frogsfrogsfrogs>
 <ZFrBEsjrfseCUzqV@moria.home.lan>
 <ZFx+GOjabJIaJWU8@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZFx+GOjabJIaJWU8@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 01:33:12AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Seriously, does this mean that bcachefs won't work on Arm systems
> (arm32 or arm64)?  Or Risc V systems?  Or S/390's?  Or Power
> architectuers?  Or Itanium or PA-RISC systems?  (OK, I really don't
> care all that much about those last two.  :-)

No :)

My CI servers are arm64 servers. There's a bch2_bkey_unpack_key()
written in C, that works on any architecture. But specializing for a
particular format is a not-insignificant performance improvement, so
writing an arm64 version has been on my todo list.

> When people ask me why file systems are so hard to make enterprise
> ready, I tell them to recall the general advice given to people to
> write secure, robust systems: (a) avoid premature optimization, (b)
> avoid fine-grained, multi-threaded programming, as much as possible,
> because locking bugs are a b*tch, and (c) avoid unnecessary global
> state as much as possible.
> 
> File systems tend to violate all of these precepts: (a) people chase
> benchmark optimizations to the exclusion of all else, because people
> have an unhealthy obsession with Phornix benchmark articles, (b) file
> systems tend to be inherently multi-threaded, with lots of locks, and
> (c) file systems are all about managing global state in the form of
> files, directories, etc.
> 
> However, hiding a miniature architecture-specific compiler inside a
> file system seems to be a rather blatent example of "premature
> optimization".

Ted, this project is _15_ years old.

I'm getting ready to write a full explanation of what this is for and
why it's important, I've just been busy with the conference - and I want
to write something good, that provides all the context.

I've also been mulling over fallback options, but I don't see any good
ones. The unspecialized, C version of unpack has branches (the absolute
minimum, I took my time when I was writing that code too); the
specialized versions are branchless and _much_ smaller, and the only way
to do that specialization is with some form of dynamic codegen.

But I do owe you all a detailed walkthrough of what this is all about,
so you'll get it in the next day or so.

Cheers,
Kent