[Ocfs2-devel] Cleancache [PATCH 2/7] (was Transcendent Memory): core files

[Ocfs2-devel] Cleancache [PATCH 2/7] (was Transcendent Memory): core files

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 06:28:09AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> +struct cleancache_ops {
> +	int (*init_fs)(unsigned long);

unsigned long?  Really?  Not even size_t?

> +	int (*init_shared_fs)(char *uuid, unsigned long);

Ditto.

> +	int (*get_page)(int, unsigned long, unsigned long, struct page *);

Ugh.  First of all, presumably you have some structure behind that index,
don't you?  Might be a better way to do it.

What's more, use of ->i_ino is simply wrong.  How stable do you want that
to be and how much do you want it to outlive struct address_space in question?
From my reading of your code, it doesn't outlive that anyway, so...

The third one is pgoff_t; again, use sane types, _if_ you actually want
the argument #3 at all - it can be derived from struct page you are passing
there as well.

> +	int (*put_page)(int, unsigned long, unsigned long, struct page *);
> +	int (*flush_page)(int, unsigned long, unsigned long);
> +	int (*flush_inode)(int, unsigned long);
> +	void (*flush_fs)(int);

Same questions as above...

[Ocfs2-devel] Cleancache [PATCH 2/7] (was Transcendent Memory): core files

[Dan Magenheimer]

> From: Al Viro [mailto:viro at ZenIV.linux.org.uk]
> Subject: Re: Cleancache [PATCH 2/7] (was Transcendent Memory): core files

Hi Al!

Thanks for the feedback!  Sorry for the delayed response.

> ...again, use sane types...

Good point.  Will fix types for next rev (using size_t, ino_t,
and pgoff_t).

> > +	int (*get_page)(int, unsigned long, unsigned long, struct page *);
> 
> Ugh.  First of all, presumably you have some structure behind that
> index, don't you?  Might be a better way to do it.

Not quite sure what you mean here.  The index is really
just part of a unique handle for cleancache to identify
the (page of) data.

> What's more, use of ->i_ino is simply wrong.  How stable do you want that
> to be and how much do you want it to outlive struct address_space in question?
> From my reading of your code, it doesn't outlive that anyway, so...

Unless I misunderstand your point, no, the inode never outlives
the address space because the specification requires the kernel
to ensure coherency; if the inode were about to outlive the
address space, the cleancache_flush operations must be invoked
(and I think the patch covers all the necessary cases).

> The third one is pgoff_t; again, use sane types, _if_ you actually want
> the argument #3 at all - it can be derived from struct page you are
> passing there as well.

I thought it best to declare the _ops so that the struct page
is opaque to the "backend" (driver).  The kernel-side ("frontend")
defines the handle and ensures coherency, so the backend shouldn't
be allowed to derive or muck with the three-tuple passed by the
kernel. In the existing (Xen tmem) driver, the only operation
performed on the struct page parameter is page_to_pfn().  OTOH,
I could go one step further and pass a pfn_t instead of a
struct page, since it is really only the physical page frame that
the backend needs to know about and (synchronously) read/write from/to.

Thoughts?

Thanks again!
Dan

[Ocfs2-devel] Cleancache [PATCH 2/7] (was Transcendent Memory): core files

[Dan Magenheimer]

> > The third one is pgoff_t; again, use sane types, _if_ you actually
> want
> > the argument #3 at all - it can be derived from struct page you are
> > passing there as well.
> 
> I thought it best to declare the _ops so that the struct page
> is opaque to the "backend" (driver).  The kernel-side ("frontend")
> defines the handle and ensures coherency, so the backend shouldn't
> be allowed to derive or muck with the three-tuple passed by the
> kernel. In the existing (Xen tmem) driver, the only operation
> performed on the struct page parameter is page_to_pfn().  OTOH,
> I could go one step further and pass a pfn_t instead of a
> struct page, since it is really only the physical page frame that
> the backend needs to know about and (synchronously) read/write from/to.
> 
> Thoughts?

Silly me.  pfn_t is a Xen/KVM type not otherwise used in the
kernel AFAICT.  Please ignore...