[linux-mm-cc] [PATCH 2/4] virtual block device driver (ramzswap)

[Nitin Gupta]

Hi Pekka,

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Pekka Enberg <penberg at cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Nitin Gupta <ngupta at vflare.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Nitin Gupta <ngupta at vflare.org> wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Globals */
>>>> +static int RAMZSWAP_MAJOR;
>>>> +static struct ramzswap *DEVICES;
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Pages that compress to larger than this size are
>>>> + * forwarded to backing swap, if present or stored
>>>> + * uncompressed in memory otherwise.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static unsigned int MAX_CPAGE_SIZE;
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Module params (documentation at end) */
>>>> +static unsigned long NUM_DEVICES;
>>>
>>> These variable names should be in lower case.
>>
>> Global variables with lower case causes confusion.
>
> Hmm? You are not following the kernel coding style here. It's as simple as that.
>

ok....all lower case/.



>>>> +static int page_zero_filled(void *ptr)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       u32 pos;
>>>> +       u64 *page;
>>>> +
>>>> +       page = (u64 *)ptr;
>>>> +
>>>> +       for (pos = 0; pos != PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(*page); pos++) {
>>>> +               if (page[pos])
>>>> +                       return 0;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       return 1;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> This looks like something that could be in lib/string.c.
>>>
>>> /me looks
>>>
>>> There's strspn so maybe you could introduce a memspn equivalent.
>>
>> Maybe this is just too specific to this driver. Who else will use it?
>> So, this simple function should stay within this driver only. If it
>> finds more user, we can them move it to lib/string.c.
>>
>> If I now move it to string.c I am sure I will get reverse argument
>> from someone else:
>> "currently, it has no other users so bury it with this driver only".
>
> How can you be sure about that? If you don't want to move it to
> generic code, fine, but the above argumentation doesn't really
> convince me. Check the git logs to see that this is *exactly* how new
> functions get added to lib/string.c. It's not always a question of two
> or more users, it's also an API issue. It doesn't make sense to put
> helpers in driver code where they don't belong (and won't be
> discovered if they're needed somewhere else).
>

I don't want to ponder too much about this point now. If you all are okay
with keeping this function buried in driver, I will do so. I'm almost tired
maintaining this compcache thing outside of mainline.


>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Given <pagenum, offset> pair, provide a dereferencable pointer.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void *get_ptr_atomic(struct page *page, u16 offset, enum km_type type)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       unsigned char *base;
>>>> +
>>>> +       base = kmap_atomic(page, type);
>>>> +       return base + offset;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void put_ptr_atomic(void *ptr, enum km_type type)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       kunmap_atomic(ptr, type);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> These two functions also appear in xmalloc. It's probably best to just
>>> kill the wrappers and use kmap/kunmap directly.
>>
>> Wrapper for kmap_atomic is nice as spreading:
>> kmap_atomic(page, KM_USER0,1) + offset everywhere looks worse.
>> What is the problem if these little 1-liner wrappers are repeated in
>> xvmalloc too?
>> To me, they just add some clarity.
>
> To me, they look like useless wrappers which we don't do in the kernel.
>

I will see how it looks without wrappers and depending on that I will decide
if keeping this wrapper is better. Again, I don't want to ponder too much about
this and will open code this if so required.


>>>> +static void ramzswap_flush_dcache_page(struct page *page)
>>>> +{
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM
>>>> +       int flag = 0;
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * Ugly hack to get flush_dcache_page() work on ARM.
>>>> +        * page_mapping(page) == NULL after clearing this swap cache flag.
>>>> +        * Without clearing this flag, flush_dcache_page() will simply set
>>>> +        * "PG_dcache_dirty" bit and return.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       if (PageSwapCache(page)) {
>>>> +               flag = 1;
>>>> +               ClearPageSwapCache(page);
>>>> +       }
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +       flush_dcache_page(page);
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM
>>>> +       if (flag)
>>>> +               SetPageSwapCache(page);
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> The above CONFIG_ARM magic really has no place in drivers/block.
>>>
>>
>> Please read the comment above this hack to see why its needed. Also,
>> for details see this mail:
>> http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2008-11/msg00038.html
>>
>> No one replied to above mail. So, I though just to temporarily introduce this
>> hack while someone makes a proper fix for ARM (I will probably ping ARM/MIPS
>> folks again for this).
>>
>> Without this hack, ramzswap simply won't work on ARM. See:
>> http://code.google.com/p/compcache/issues/detail?id=33
>>
>> So, its extremely difficult to wait for the _proper_ fix.
>
> Then make ramzswap depend on !CONFIG_ARM. In any case, CONFIG_ARM bits
> really don't belong into drivers/block.
>

ARM is an extremely important user of compcache -- Its currently being
tested (unofficially)
on Android, Nokia etc.


>>>> +
>>>> +       trace_mark(ramzswap_lock_wait, "ramzswap_lock_wait");
>>>> +       mutex_lock(&rzs->lock);
>>>> +       trace_mark(ramzswap_lock_acquired, "ramzswap_lock_acquired");
>>>
>>> Hmm? What's this? I don't think you should be doing ad hoc
>>> trace_mark() in driver code.
>>
>> This is not ad hoc. It is to see contention over this lock which I believe is a
>> major bottleneck even on dual-cores. I need to keep this to measure improvements
>> as I gradually make this locking more fine grained (using per-cpu buffer etc).
>
> It is ad hoc. Talk to the ftrace folks how to do it properly. I'd keep
> those bits out-of-tree until the issue is resolved, really.
>

/me is speechless.


>>>> +       rzs->compress_buffer = kzalloc(2 * PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> Use alloc_pages(__GFP_ZERO) here?
>>
>> alloc pages then map them (i.e. vmalloc). What did we gain? With
>> vmalloc, pages might
>> not be physically contiguous which might hurt performance as
>> compressor runs over this buffer.
>>
>> So, use kzalloc().
>
> I don't know what you're talking about. kzalloc() calls
> __get_free_pages() directly for your allocation. You probably should
> use that directly.
>

What is wrong with kzalloc? I'm wholly totally stumped.
I respect your time reviewing the code but this really goes over my head.
We can continue arguing about get_pages vs kzalloc but I doubt if we will
gain anything out of it.


>>>> +/* Debugging and Stats */
>>>> +#define NOP    do { } while (0)
>>>
>>> Huh? Drop this.
>>
>> This is more of individual taste. This makes the code look cleaner to me.
>> I hope its not considered 'over decoration'.
>
> Hey, the kernel doesn't care about your or my individual taste. I'm
> pointing out things that I think fall in the category of "we don't do
> shit like this in the kernel", not things _I_ personally find
> annoying. If you want to ignore those comments, fine, that's your
> prerogative. However, people usually have better results in getting
> their code merged when they listen to kernel developers who take the
> time to review their code.
>

Yikes! no NOP. okay.


Thanks,
Nitin