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
next prev parent 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