From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59990 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725864AbfDRG1D (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 02:27:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 02:27:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Pankaj Gupta Message-ID: <695036448.22376013.1555568820649.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20190410040826.24371-1-pagupta@redhat.com> <20190410040826.24371-2-pagupta@redhat.com> <20190412083230.GA29850@quack2.suse.cz> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/6] libnvdimm: nd_region flush callback support MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Jeff Moyer , Jan Kara , Dan Williams Cc: cohuck@redhat.com, KVM list , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , david , Qemu Developers , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andreas Dilger , Ross Zwisler , Andrea Arcangeli , Dave Jiang , linux-nvdimm , Vishal L Verma , David Hildenbrand , Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig , Linux ACPI , linux-ext4 , Len Brown , kilobyte@angband.pl, Rik van Riel , yuval shaia , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , lcapitulino@redhat.com, Kevin Wolf , Nitesh Narayan Lal , Theodore Ts'o , Xiao Guangrong , "Darrick J. Wong" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-xfs , linux-fsdevel , Igor Mammedov Hello, Thank you for the suggestions on this. > > > On Thu 11-04-19 07:51:48, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:09 PM Pankaj Gupta wrote: > >> > + } else { > >> > + if (nd_region->flush(nd_region)) > >> > + rc = -EIO; > >> > >> Given the common case wants to be fast and synchronous I think we > >> should try to avoid retpoline overhead by default. So something like > >> this: > >> > >> if (nd_region->flush == generic_nvdimm_flush) > >> rc = generic_nvdimm_flush(...); > > > > I'd either add a comment about avoiding retpoline overhead here or just > > make ->flush == NULL mean generic_nvdimm_flush(). Just so that people don't > > get confused by the code. > > Isn't this premature optimization? I really don't like adding things > like this without some numbers to show it's worth it. Can we add the optimization after this version is merged. Best regards, Pankaj > > -Jeff > >