public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Niel Lambrechts <niel.lambrechts@gmail.com>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] block: use the same failfast bits for bio and	request
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:06:03 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A59D1AB.2040705@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A573FB9.2090202@kernel.org>

On 07/10/2009 04:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Christoph.
> 
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:45:24AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> What's more disturbing to me is the different between RQ and BIO
>>> flags.  __REQ_* are bit positions, REQ_* are masks while BIO_* are bit
>>> positions.  Sadly it seems it's already too late to change that.  I
>>> personally an not a big fan of simple accessors or flags defined as
>>> bit positions.  They seem to obscure things without much benefit.
>> flags as bit positions generally only make sense if you use
>> test/set/clear_bit, otherwise they just confuse things.
> 

first please make a distinction between test/set/clear_bit and
test/__set/__clear_bit the former is not an option since it's not what
we need.

I too, do not like the lower-case accessors for upper-case bits like:
blk_failfast_dev() && blk_failfast_transport() which give nothing
and confuse the grepping of sets-vs-clears.

But I do like the use of __set/__clear_bit of flags. grepping is clear
and code semantics are more correct. Actually I prefer when a construct
like bio or request have two accessors set/clear_flags, which abstract
out not the bits but the flags member. Say when things evolve in the future
it is easer to adapted.

What can be more clear then rq_set_flags(req, QUEUE_FLAG_QUEUED) then
rq_clear_flags(req, QUEUE_FLAG_QUEUED) later.

> Another shortcoming of bit position flags is masking / multi flag
> operations.  It's just awful.  I think it's always better to define
> flags as masks even when it's used with test/set/clear_bit().  If such
> usages are common enough, we can easily add test/set/clear_bit_mask().
> The conversion from mask to bit would be constant most of the time and
> it's not like fls/ffs() are expensive.
> 

That's why I suggested the set/clear_flags() variable size macro
which can  set/clear multiple bit-flags at same cost of masks, only
that the compiler calculates the mask in compile time.

This can also be good for the greps above. .eg:
test_flags(&rq->cmd_flags, REQ_FAILFAST_DEV, REQ_FAILFAST_TRANSPORT, REQ_FAILFAST_DRIVER);

>> And the accessors are pretty annoying, especially in the block
>> layer.  Trying to find the places where a BIO flag has an actual
>> effect is pretty painful due to the mix of the different flags and
>> the accessors.
> 
> Yeap, fully agreed.
> 

As said, yes, the the lower-case accessors for upper-case bits does nothing,
but use __set/__clear/test is a different matter that can also replace the
sugary need of these.

> Thanks.
> 

Thanks
Boaz

  reply	other threads:[~2009-07-12 12:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-03  8:48 [PATCHSET] block: fix merge of requests with different failfast settings Tejun Heo
2009-07-03  8:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: don't merge requests of " Tejun Heo
2009-07-03  8:48 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: use the same failfast bits for bio and request Tejun Heo
2009-07-05  9:27   ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-07-09  0:45     ` Tejun Heo
2009-07-09  9:12       ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-07-09 13:37       ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-09 17:20         ` Jeff Garzik
2009-07-09 17:39           ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-10 13:18         ` Tejun Heo
2009-07-12 12:06           ` Boaz Harrosh [this message]
2009-07-15  9:27             ` Tejun Heo
2009-07-03  8:48 ` [PATCH 3/4] block: implement mixed merge of different failfast requests Tejun Heo
2009-07-05  9:27   ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-07-09  0:47     ` Tejun Heo
2009-07-09  9:17       ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-07-15  9:41         ` Tejun Heo
2009-07-03  8:48 ` [PATCH 4/4] scsi,block: update SCSI to handle mixed merge failures Tejun Heo
2009-07-03 10:54 ` [PATCHSET] block: fix merge of requests with different failfast settings Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4A59D1AB.2040705@panasas.com \
    --to=bharrosh@panasas.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=niel.lambrechts@gmail.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox