Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-62262-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:13:13 -0800
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
	Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND 3/6] bitmap: Make bitmap_onto() available to
 users
Message-ID: <Zcptyd/AWrDD3EAL@yury-ThinkPad>
References: <20240212075646.19114-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com>
 <20240212075646.19114-4-herve.codina@bootlin.com>
 <ZcoOpPb9HfXOYmAr@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240212143753.620ddd6e@bootlin.com>
 <ZcokwpMb6SFWhLBB@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240212152022.75b10268@bootlin.com>
 <Zcos9F3ZCX5c936p@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zcos9F3ZCX5c936p@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:36:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:20:22PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:01:38 +0200
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > Agree, the bitmap_onto() code is simpler to understand than its help.
> > 
> > I introduced bitmap_off() to be the "reverse" bitmap_onto() operations
> > and I preferred to avoid duplicating function that do the same things.
> > 
> > On my side, I initially didn't use the bitmap_*() functions and did the the
> > bits manipulation by hand.
> > During the review, it was suggested to use the bitmap_*() family and I followed
> > this suggestion.
> 
> I also would go this way, the problems I see with the current implementation are:

Sure, opencoding and duplicating the functionality is always a bad
idea.

> - being related to NUMA (and as Rasmus once pointed out better to be there);

It's 'related to NUMA' for the only reason - it's used by NUMA only.
Nothing NUMA-specific in the function itself.

Now that we've got a non-NUMA user, the bitmap_onto() is not related
to NUMA anymore.

> - unclear naming, esp. proposed bitmap_off();

That's I agree. Scatter/gather from your last approach sound better.
Do you plan to send a v2?

> - the quite hard to understand help text

Yes, we need a picture that would illustrate what actually happens

> - atomicity when it's not needed (AFAICT).

Agree. A series of atomic ops is not atomic. For example

        if (test_bit(n, map))
                set_bit(m, map);

is not atomic as a whole. And this is what we do in bitmap_onto/off()
in a loop. This must be fixed by using underscoded version.

> > I did tests to be sure that bitmap_onto() and bitmap_off() did
> > exactly the same things as my previous code did.
> 
> Yuri, what do you think about all this?

I think your scatter/gather is better then this onto/off by naming and
implementation. If you'll send a v2, and it would work for Herve, I'd
prefer scatter/gather. But we can live with onto/off as well.

Thanks,
Yury