From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] dm: add reserved_rq_based_ios module
	parameter
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:32:03 -0400
Message-ID: <20130912233203.GE31577@redhat.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1308261012400.12373@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
	<1379024698-10487-1-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com>
	<1379024698-10487-3-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com>
	<alpine.LRH.2.02.1309121840470.31794@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
	<20130912231531.GD31577@redhat.com>
	<alpine.LRH.2.02.1309121917420.3245@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Reply-To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1309121917420.3245@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
List-Id: dm-devel.ids

On Thu, Sep 12 2013 at  7:27pm -0400,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 12 2013 at  6:45pm -0400,
> > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I think this is too complicated.
> > > 
> > > dm-bufio uses similar approach like this patch - but in dm-bufio the code 
> > > path is performance critical, we don't want to recalculate memory size 
> > > with each i/o request.
> > > 
> > > Here it is not performance critical, so I'd drop the mutex, drop the 
> > > latch, drop the function __reserved_request_based_ios_refresh and add only 
> > > these lines:
> > > 
> > > pool_size = ACCESS_ONCE(reserved_rq_based_ios);
> > > if (!pool_size) pool_size = RESERVED_REQUEST_BASED_IOS;
> > 
> > Could be I'm missing something but isn't the locking about correctness
> > rather than performance?
> 
> If the user changes the value while you are allocating the mempool, you 
> can allocate the mempool with the old or new value, it doesn't matter. 
> There is nothing to lock against.
> 
> > Also, using the latch enables the dm_get_reserved_rq_based_ios()
> > interface that is used in patch 5.
> > 
> > Mike
> 
> You can just define dm_get_reserved_rq_based_ios as this:
> unsigned dm_get_reserved_rq_based_ios(void)
> {
> 	unsigned pool_size = ACCESS_ONCE(reserved_rq_based_ios);
> 	if (!pool_size) pool_size = RESERVED_REQUEST_BASED_IOS;
> 	return pool_size;
> }
> ... and call it when you need the pool size.
> 
> The purpose of the latch in dm-bufio is to avoid memory size recalculation 
> with each buffer allocation. Here, there is nothing to recalculate and the 
> code path is not performance-critical.

OK, I'll revise the patch.

Thanks,
Mike