From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41390 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725888AbfDRQLA (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:11:00 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] libnvdimm: nd_region flush callback support References: <20190410040826.24371-1-pagupta@redhat.com> <20190410040826.24371-2-pagupta@redhat.com> <20190412083230.GA29850@quack2.suse.cz> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:10:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Dan Williams's message of "Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:05:05 -0700") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dan Williams Cc: Jan Kara , Pankaj Gupta , linux-nvdimm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, KVM list , linux-fsdevel , Linux ACPI , Qemu Developers , linux-ext4 , linux-xfs , Ross Zwisler , Vishal L Verma , Dave Jiang , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Matthew Wilcox , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Christoph Hellwig , Len Brown , Theodore Ts'o , Andreas Dilger , "Darrick J. Wong" , lcapitulino@redhat.com, Kevin Wolf , Igor Mammedov , Nitesh Narayan Lal , Rik van Riel , Stefan Hajnoczi , Andrea Arcangeli , David Hildenbrand , david , cohuck@redhat.com, Xiao Guangrong , Paolo Bonzini , kilobyte@angband.pl, yuval shaia Dan Williams writes: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 6:12 AM Jeff Moyer wrote: >> >> Jan Kara writes: >> >> > 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. > > I don't think it's premature given this optimization technique is > already being deployed elsewhere, see: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/774347/ The technique is fine, but that doesn't mean it should be applied everywhere. Is *this* code path really going to benefit from the optimization? -Jeff