Re: [patch 4/4] dm-writecache: use new API for flushing

[Mike Snitzer <snitzer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, May 30 2018 at 10:09am -0400,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 30 2018 at  9:33am -0400,
> > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 30 May 2018, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 30 2018 at  9:21am -0400,
> > > > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 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.