Hello, Kent.
I've been reading the code and am still very far from understanding
the whole thing but here are general impressions upto this point.
* I started reading from get_bucket(), mostly because I wasn't sure
where to start. It would be very helpful to the reviewers and
future participants if there's a design doc and more comments (much
more). The code is on the big side and the problem is exacerbated
by use of somewhat unconventional constructs and conventions and
lack of documentation and comments.
* It's unfortunate but true that different parts of kernel are held to
different standards in terms of conformance to overall style and
structure. Code for obscure device, for example, is allowed to be
way more weird than common core code. That said, one thing which is
generally frowned upon is bringing in lots of foreign constructs
because that tends to make the code much more difficult to follow
for other people than plain silly code. Even for drivers, code with
a lot of wrappers and foreign constructs (synchronization, data
structure...) tend to get nacked and are recommended to convert to
existing infrastructure even if that ends up, say, more verbose
code.
It is also true that new constructs and mechanisms are constantly
being added to kernel and the ones used by bcache could be useful
enough to have; however, with my currently limited understanding,
the oddities seem too much.
* Too many smart macros. Macros suck. Smart ones double suck.
* For file internal ones, it's okay to be somewhat relaxed with
namespace separation but bcache code seems to be going too far. It
also becomes a lot worse with macros as warnings and errors from
compiler get much more difficult to decipher. e.g. things like
next() and end() macros are calling for trouble.
* Somewhat related to the above, I'm not a fan of super-verbose
symbols but I *hope* that the variable names were just a tiny bit
more descriptive. At least, the ones used as arguments.
* The biggest thing that I dislike about closure is that it's not
clear what it does when I see one. Is it a refcount,
synchronization construct or asynchronous execution mechanism? To
me, it seems like a construct with too many purposes and too much
abstraction, which tends to make it difficult to understand, easy to
misuse and difficult to debug. IMHO, constructs like this could
seem very attractive to small group of people with certain concepts
firmly on their minds; however, one man's paradise is another man's
hell and we're often better off without either. In many ways,
closure feels like kobject and friends.
I'd like to recommend using something more concerete even if that
means more verbosity. ie. if there are lots of bio sequencing going
on, implement and use bio sequencer. That's way more concerete and
concerete stuff tends to be much easier to wrap one's head around
mostly because it's much easier to agree upon for different people
and they don't have to keep second-guessing what the original author
would have on his/her mind while implementing it.
The problem that closure poses is that stuff like this adds a lot to
on-going maintenance overhead. bcache could be very successful and
something we continue to use for decades but it might as well be
mostly meaningless in five years due to developments in storage
technology. It'll still have to be maintained and you might not be
around for the task and we don't want people to face code body which
depends on alien abstract synchronization and async constructs while
updating, say, block or workqueue API. Code may be doing complex
things but they still better use the constructs and follow the
conventions that the rest of the kernel is using as much as
possible.
Again, my understanding of the code base is quite limited at this
point so I might change my mind but these were the impressions I got
upto this point. I'll keep on reading. Specific comments follow.
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:10:17PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> +#define simple_strtoint(c, end, base) simple_strtol(c, end, base)
> +#define simple_strtouint(c, end, base) simple_strtoul(c, end, base)
> +
> +#define STRTO_H(name, type) \
> +int name ## _h(const char *cp, type *res) \
> +{ \
...
> +} \
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(name ## _h);
> +
> +STRTO_H(strtoint, int)
> +STRTO_H(strtouint, unsigned int)
> +STRTO_H(strtoll, long long)
> +STRTO_H(strtoull, unsigned long long)
Function defining macros == bad. Can't it be implemented with a
common backend function with wrappers implementing limits? Why not
use memparse()?
> +ssize_t hprint(char *buf, int64_t v)
> +{
> + static const char units[] = "?kMGTPEZY";
> + char dec[3] = "";
> + int u, t = 0;
> +
> + for (u = 0; v >= 1024 || v <= -1024; u++) {
> + t = v & ~(~0 << 10);
> + v >>= 10;
> + }
> +
> + if (!u)
> + return sprintf(buf, "%llu", v);
> +
> + if (v < 100 && v > -100)
> + sprintf(dec, ".%i", t / 100);
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%lli%s%c", v, dec, units[u]);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hprint);
Not your fault but maybe we want integer vsnprintf modifier for this.
Also, sprintf() sucks.
> +ssize_t sprint_string_list(char *buf, const char * const list[],
> + size_t selected)
> +{
> + char *out = buf;
> +
> + for (size_t i = 0; list[i]; i++)
> + out += sprintf(out, i == selected ? "[%s] " : "%s ", list[i]);
> +
> + out[-1] = '\n';
> + return out - buf;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sprint_string_list);
sprintf() sucks.
> +bool is_zero(const char *p, size_t n)
> +{
> + for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++)
This doesn't build. While loop var decl in for loop is nice, the
kernel isn't built in c99 mode. If you want to enable c99 mode
kernel-wide, you're welcome to try but you can't flip that
per-component.
> + if (p[i])
> + return false;
> + return true;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(is_zero);
>
> +int parse_uuid(const char *s, char *uuid)
> +{
> + size_t i, j, x;
> + memset(uuid, 0, 16);
> +
> + for (i = 0, j = 0;
> + i < strspn(s, "-0123456789:ABCDEFabcdef") && j < 32;
> + i++) {
> + x = s[i] | 32;
> +
> + switch (x) {
> + case '0'...'9':
> + x -= '0';
> + break;
> + case 'a'...'f':
> + x -= 'a' - 10;
> + break;
> + default:
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if (!(j & 1))
> + x <<= 4;
> + uuid[j++ >> 1] |= x;
> + }
> + return i;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(parse_uuid);
Hmmm... can't we just enforce fixed format used by vsnprintf()?
> +void time_stats_update(struct time_stats *stats, uint64_t start_time)
> +{
> + uint64_t now = local_clock();
> + uint64_t duration = time_after64(now, start_time)
> + ? now - start_time : 0;
> + uint64_t last = time_after64(now, stats->last)
> + ? now - stats->last : 0;
> +
> + stats->max_duration = max(stats->max_duration, duration);
> +
> + if (stats->last) {
> + ewma_add(stats->average_duration, duration, 8, 8);
> +
> + if (stats->average_frequency)
> + ewma_add(stats->average_frequency, last, 8, 8);
> + else
> + stats->average_frequency = last << 8;
> + } else
> + stats->average_duration = duration << 8;
> +
> + stats->last = now ?: 1;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(time_stats_update);
if {
} else {
}
Even if one of the branches is single line. Also, I'm not sure this
(and a few others) is general enough to be common utility.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BCACHE_LATENCY_DEBUG
> +unsigned latency_warn_ms;
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BCACHE_EDEBUG
> +
> +static void check_bio(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> + unsigned i, size = 0;
> + struct bio_vec *bv;
> + struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bio->bi_bdev);
New line missing.
> + BUG_ON(!bio->bi_vcnt);
> + BUG_ON(!bio->bi_size);
> +
> + bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, i)
> + size += bv->bv_len;
> +
> + BUG_ON(size != bio->bi_size);
> + BUG_ON(size > queue_max_sectors(q) << 9);
> +
> + blk_recount_segments(q, bio);
> + BUG_ON(bio->bi_phys_segments > queue_max_segments(q));
> +}
...
> +void bio_map(struct bio *bio, void *base)
> +{
> + size_t size = bio->bi_size;
> + struct bio_vec *bv = bio->bi_inline_vecs;
> +
> + BUG_ON(!bio->bi_size);
> + bio->bi_vcnt = 0;
> + bio->bi_io_vec = bv;
I'd prefer these assignments didn't have indentations.
> + bv->bv_offset = base ? ((unsigned long) base) % PAGE_SIZE : 0;
> + goto start;
> +
> + for (; size; bio->bi_vcnt++, bv++) {
> + bv->bv_offset = 0;
> +start: bv->bv_len = min_t(size_t, PAGE_SIZE - bv->bv_offset,
> + size);
Please don't do this.
> + if (base) {
> + bv->bv_page = is_vmalloc_addr(base)
> + ? vmalloc_to_page(base)
> + : virt_to_page(base);
> +
> + base += bv->bv_len;
> + }
> +
> + size -= bv->bv_len;
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bio_map);
> +
> +#undef bio_alloc_pages
Why is this undef necessary? If it's necessary, why isn't there any
explanation?
> +int bio_alloc_pages(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct bio_vec *bv;
New line missing.
> + bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, i) {
> + bv->bv_page = alloc_page(gfp);
> + if (!bv->bv_page) {
> + while (bv-- != bio->bi_io_vec + bio->bi_idx)
> + __free_page(bv->bv_page);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bio_alloc_pages);
> +
> +struct bio *bio_split_front(struct bio *bio, int sectors, bio_alloc_fn *_alloc,
> + gfp_t gfp, struct bio_set *bs)
> +{
> + unsigned idx, vcnt = 0, nbytes = sectors << 9;
> + struct bio_vec *bv;
> + struct bio *ret = NULL;
> +
> + struct bio *alloc(int n)
> + {
> + if (bs)
> + return bio_alloc_bioset(gfp, n, bs);
> + else if (_alloc)
> + return _alloc(gfp, n);
> + else
> + return bio_kmalloc(gfp, n);
> + }
These are now separate patch series, right? But, please don't use
nested functions. Apart from being very unconventional (does gnu99
even allow this?), the implicit outer scope access is dangerous when
mixed with context bouncing which is rather common in kernel. We
(well, at least I) actually want cross stack frame accesses to be
explicit.
> +unsigned popcount_64(uint64_t x)
> +{
> + static const uint64_t m1 = 0x5555555555555555LLU;
> + static const uint64_t m2 = 0x3333333333333333LLU;
> + static const uint64_t m4 = 0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0fLLU;
> + static const uint64_t h01 = 0x0101010101010101LLU;
> +
> + x -= (x >> 1) & m1;
> + x = (x & m2) + ((x >> 2) & m2);
> + x = (x + (x >> 4)) & m4;
> + return (x * h01) >> 56;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(popcount_64);
> +
> +unsigned popcount_32(uint32_t x)
> +{
> + static const uint32_t m1 = 0x55555555;
> + static const uint32_t m2 = 0x33333333;
> + static const uint32_t m4 = 0x0f0f0f0f;
> + static const uint32_t h01 = 0x01010101;
> +
> + x -= (x >> 1) & m1;
> + x = (x & m2) + ((x >> 2) & m2);
> + x = (x + (x >> 4)) & m4;
> + return (x * h01) >> 24;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(popcount_32);
How are these different from bitmap_weight()?
> +#ifndef USHRT_MAX
> +#define USHRT_MAX ((u16)(~0U))
> +#define SHRT_MAX ((s16)(USHRT_MAX>>1))
> +#endif
...
These compat macros can be removed for upstream submission, right?
> +#define BITMASK(name, type, field, offset, size) \
> +static inline uint64_t name(const type *k) \
> +{ return (k->field >> offset) & ~(((uint64_t) ~0) << size); } \
> + \
> +static inline void SET_##name(type *k, uint64_t v) \
> +{ \
> + k->field &= ~(~((uint64_t) ~0 << size) << offset); \
> + k->field |= v << offset; \
> +}
More function defining macros.
> +#define DECLARE_HEAP(type, name) \
> + struct { \
> + size_t size, used; \
> + type *data; \
> + } name
> +
> +#define init_heap(heap, _size, gfp) \
Ummm.... so, essentially templates done in macros. Please don't do
that. Definitely NACK on this.
> +#define DECLARE_FIFO(type, name) \
> + struct { \
> + size_t front, back, size, mask; \
> + type *data; \
> + } name
> +
> +#define fifo_for_each(c, fifo) \
Ditto. Templates are already yucky enough even with compiler support.
IMHO, it's a horrible idea to try that with preprocessor in C.
> +#define DECLARE_ARRAY_ALLOCATOR(type, name, size) \
> + struct { \
> + type *freelist; \
> + type data[size]; \
> + } name
Ditto.
> +#define strtoi_h(cp, res) \
> + (__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*res), int) \
> + ? strtoint_h(cp, (void *) res) \
> + :__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*res), long) \
> + ? strtol_h(cp, (void *) res) \
> + : __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*res), long long) \
> + ? strtoll_h(cp, (void *) res) \
> + : __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*res), unsigned int) \
> + ? strtouint_h(cp, (void *) res) \
> + : __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*res), unsigned long) \
> + ? strtoul_h(cp, (void *) res) \
> + : __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(*res), unsigned long long)\
> + ? strtoull_h(cp, (void *) res) : -EINVAL)
Is this *really* necessary?
> +#define strtoul_safe(cp, var) \
> +({ \
> + unsigned long _v; \
> + int _r = strict_strtoul(cp, 10, &_v); \
> + if (!_r) \
> + var = _v; \
> + _r; \
> +})
> +
> +#define strtoul_safe_clamp(cp, var, min, max) \
> +({ \
> + unsigned long _v; \
> + int _r = strict_strtoul(cp, 10, &_v); \
> + if (!_r) \
> + var = clamp_t(typeof(var), _v, min, max); \
> + _r; \
> +})
> +
> +#define snprint(buf, size, var) \
> + snprintf(buf, size, \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(var), int) \
> + ? "%i\n" : \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(var), unsigned) \
> + ? "%u\n" : \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(var), long) \
> + ? "%li\n" : \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(var), unsigned long)\
> + ? "%lu\n" : \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(var), int64_t) \
> + ? "%lli\n" : \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(var), uint64_t) \
> + ? "%llu\n" : \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(var), const char *) \
> + ? "%s\n" : "%i\n", var)
Ditto.
I'm gonna stop here. It should be pretty clear what I'm bitching
about by now. :) Please make it C and, better, kernel C.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
