From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6EDC2D0ED for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDC62076A for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Hhw84d8v" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6BDC62076A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1A59A6B0010; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 03:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 12F5A8E0001; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 03:23:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id F37B86B0036; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 03:23:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0155.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.155]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B716B0010 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 03:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEEA181AD0A2 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:23:09 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76647558498.09.hill82_55ca25e9e3d63 X-HE-Tag: hill82_55ca25e9e3d63 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6951 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf39.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9057320748; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:23:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1585466588; bh=pYRVbuBb5qkU8mIDMvM9P+PnyRnhYJ9Ioj9Q4SdIUHU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Hhw84d8vq304G7LOdUQ6QR19pDWmynfURj4cOG9t45qWXx4SOoGzVzxayBlFOCnlh YH3NtgjpA8FmgQkMtVpKHdT7ji3D5tjWqm8bqJtENK90x44zSDo0BncPyghfsFXJcG 8F3zGY3mZBTBlCHqp/Hy/u0s28idN2z10A6t0LY0= Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 09:23:04 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Jaewon Kim , vbabka@suse.cz, adobriyan@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, labbott@redhat.com, sumit.semwal@linaro.org, minchan@kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, kasong@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jaewon31.kim@gmail.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] meminfo_extra: introduce meminfo extra Message-ID: <20200329072304.GA3909421@kroah.com> References: <20200323080503.6224-1-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> <20200323080503.6224-2-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> <20200323095344.GB425358@kroah.com> <5E79CEB5.8070308@samsung.com> <20200324101110.GA2218981@kroah.com> <5E79F102.9080405@samsung.com> <20200324114645.GA2330984@kroah.com> <5E7A02BC.7020803@samsung.com> <20200329071907.GB2454444@unreal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200329071907.GB2454444@unreal> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:19:07AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:53:16PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote: > > > > > > On 2020=EB=85=84 03=EC=9B=94 24=EC=9D=BC 20:46, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:37:38PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote: > > >> > > >> On 2020=EB=85=84 03=EC=9B=94 24=EC=9D=BC 19:11, Greg KH wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:11:17PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote: > > >>>> On 2020=EB=85=84 03=EC=9B=94 23=EC=9D=BC 18:53, Greg KH wrote: > > >>>>>> +int register_meminfo_extra(atomic_long_t *val, int shift, con= st char *name) > > >>>>>> +{ > > >>>>>> + struct meminfo_extra *meminfo, *memtemp; > > >>>>>> + int len; > > >>>>>> + int error =3D 0; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + meminfo =3D kzalloc(sizeof(*meminfo), GFP_KERNEL); > > >>>>>> + if (!meminfo) { > > >>>>>> + error =3D -ENOMEM; > > >>>>>> + goto out; > > >>>>>> + } > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + meminfo->val =3D val; > > >>>>>> + meminfo->shift_for_page =3D shift; > > >>>>>> + strncpy(meminfo->name, name, NAME_SIZE); > > >>>>>> + len =3D strlen(meminfo->name); > > >>>>>> + meminfo->name[len] =3D ':'; > > >>>>>> + strncpy(meminfo->name_pad, meminfo->name, NAME_BUF_SIZE); > > >>>>>> + while (++len < NAME_BUF_SIZE - 1) > > >>>>>> + meminfo->name_pad[len] =3D ' '; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + spin_lock(&meminfo_lock); > > >>>>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(memtemp, &meminfo_head, list) { > > >>>>>> + if (memtemp->val =3D=3D val) { > > >>>>>> + error =3D -EINVAL; > > >>>>>> + break; > > >>>>>> + } > > >>>>>> + } > > >>>>>> + if (!error) > > >>>>>> + list_add_tail_rcu(&meminfo->list, &meminfo_head); > > >>>>>> + spin_unlock(&meminfo_lock); > > >>>>> If you have a lock, why are you needing rcu? > > >>>> I think _rcu should be removed out of list_for_each_entry_rcu. > > >>>> But I'm confused about what you meant. > > >>>> I used rcu_read_lock on __meminfo_extra, > > >>>> and I think spin_lock is also needed for addition and deletion t= o handle multiple modifiers. > > >>> If that's the case, then that's fine, it just didn't seem like th= at was > > >>> needed. Or I might have been reading your rcu logic incorrectly.= .. > > >>> > > >>>>>> + if (error) > > >>>>>> + kfree(meminfo); > > >>>>>> +out: > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + return error; > > >>>>>> +} > > >>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_meminfo_extra); > > >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()? I have to ask :) > > >>>> I can use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > > >>>>> thanks, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> greg k-h > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> Hello > > >>>> Thank you for your comment. > > >>>> > > >>>> By the way there was not resolved discussion on v1 patch as I me= ntioned on cover page. > > >>>> I'd like to hear your opinion on this /proc/meminfo_extra node. > > >>> I think it is the propagation of an old and obsolete interface th= at you > > >>> will have to support for the next 20+ years and yet not actually = be > > >>> useful :) > > >>> > > >>>> Do you think this is meaningful or cannot co-exist with other fu= ture > > >>>> sysfs based API. > > >>> What sysfs-based API? > > >> Please refer to mail thread on v1 patch set - https://protect2.fir= eeye.com/url?k=3D16e3accc-4b2f6548-16e22783-0cc47aa8f5ba-935fe828ac2f6656= &u=3Dhttps://lkml.org/lkml/fancy/2020/3/10/2102 > > >> especially discussion with Leon Romanovsky on https://protect2.fir= eeye.com/url?k=3D74208ed9-29ec475d-74210596-0cc47aa8f5ba-0bd4ef48931fec95= &u=3Dhttps://lkml.org/lkml/fancy/2020/3/16/140 > > > I really do not understand what you are referring to here, sorry. = I do > > > not see any sysfs-based code in that thread. > > Sorry. I also did not see actual code. > > Hello Leon Romanovsky, could you elaborate your plan regarding sysfs = stuff? >=20 > Sorry for being late, I wasn't in "TO:", so missed the whole discussion= . >=20 > Greg, >=20 > We need the exposed information for the memory optimizations (debug, no= t > production) of our high speed NICs. Our devices (mlx5) allocates a lot = of > memory, so optimization there can help us to scale in SRIOV mode easier= and > be less constraint by the memory. Great, then use debugfs and expose what ever you want in what ever way you want, no restrictions there, you do not need any type of kernel-wide /proc file for that today. > I want to emphasize that I don't like idea of extending /proc/* interfa= ce > because it is going to be painful to grep on large machines with many > devices. And I don't like the idea that every driver will need to regis= ter > into this interface, because it will be abused almost immediately. I agree. > My proposal was to create new sysfs file by driver/core and put all > information automatically there, for example, it can be > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:0c.0/meminfo > ^^^^^^^ Nope, again, use debugfs, as sysfs is only one-value-per-file. thanks, greg k-h