On Wed, May 30 2018 at 10:09am -0400, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 May 2018, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > On Wed, May 30 2018 at 9:33am -0400, > > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 May 2018, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30 2018 at 9:21am -0400, > > > > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 May 2018, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That is really great news, can you submit an incremental patch that > > > > > > layers ontop of the linux-dm.git 'dm-4.18' branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > I've sent the current version that I have. I fixed the bugs that were > > > > > reported here (missing DAX, dm_bufio_client_create, __branch_check__ > > > > > long->int truncation). > > > > > > > > OK, but a monolithic dm-writecache.c is no longer useful to me. I can > > > > drop Arnd's gcc warning fix (with the idea that Ingo or Steve will take > > > > your __branch_check__ patch). Not sure what the dm_bufio_client_create > > > > fix is... must've missed a report about that. > > > > > > > > ANyway, point is we're on too a different phase of dm-writecache.c's > > > > development. I've picked it up and am trying to get it ready for the > > > > 4.18 merge window (likely opening Sunday). Therefore it needs to be in > > > > a git tree, and incremental changes overlayed. I cannot be rebasing at > > > > this late stage in the 4.18 development window. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > > > I downloaded dm-writecache from your git repository some times ago - but > > > you changed a lot of useless things (i.e. reordering the fields in the > > > structure) since that time - so, you'll have to merge the changes. > > > > Fine I'll deal with it. reordering the fields eliminated holes in the > > structure and reduced struct members spanning cache lines. > > And what about this? > #define WC_MODE_PMEM(wc) ((wc)->pmem_mode) > > The code that I had just allowed the compiler to optimize out > persistent-memory code if we have DM_WRITECACHE_ONLY_SSD defined - and you > deleted it. > > Most architectures don't have persistent memory and the dm-writecache > driver could work in ssd-only mode on them. On these architectures, I > define > #define WC_MODE_PMEM(wc) false > - and the compiler will just automatically remove the tests for that > condition and the unused branch. It does also eliminate unused static > functions. This level of microoptimization can be backfilled. But as it was, there were too many #defines. And I'm really not concerned with eliminating unused static functions for this case. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
