Re: [PATCH 10/18] rhashtable: remove rhashtable_walk_peek()

[Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 7:09 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 03 2018, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:30 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jun 02 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:44:09PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>>>> This function has a somewhat confused behavior that is not properly
>>>>>> described by the documentation.
>>>>>> Sometimes is returns the previous object, sometimes it returns the
>>>>>> next one.
>>>>>> Sometimes it changes the iterator, sometimes it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This function is not currently used and is not worth keeping, so
>>>>>> remove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A future patch will introduce a new function with a
>>>>>> simpler interface which can meet the same need that
>>>>>> this was added for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please keep Tom Herbert in the loop.  IIRC he had an issue with
>>>>> this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you are right - sorry for forgetting to add Tom.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of where this issue stands is that Tom raised issue and
>>>> asked for clarification, I replied, nothing further happened.
>>>>
>>>> It summary, my position is that:
>>>> - most users of my new rhashtable_walk_prev() will use it like
>>>>    rhasthable_talk_prev() ?: rhashtable_walk_next()
>>>>   which is close to what rhashtable_walk_peek() does
>>>> - I know of no use-case that could not be solved if we only had
>>>>   the combined operation
>>>> - BUT it is hard to document the combined operation, as it really
>>>>   does two things.  If it is hard to document, then it might be
>>>>   hard to understand.
>>>>
>>>> So provide the most understandable/maintainable solution, I think
>>>> we should provide rhashtable_walk_prev() as a separate interface.
>>>>
>>> I'm still missing why requiring two API operations instead of one is
>>> simpler or easier to document. Also, I disagree that
>>> rhashtable_walk_peek does two things-- it just does one which is to
>>> return the current element in the walk without advancing to the next
>>> one. The fact that the iterator may or may not move is immaterial in
>>> the API, that is an implementation detail. In fact, it's conceivable
>>> that we might completely reimplement this someday such that the
>>> iterator works completely differently implementation semantics but the
>>> API doesn't change. Also the naming in your proposal is confusing,
>>> we'd have operations to get the previous, and the next next object--
>>> so the user may ask where's the API to get the current object in the
>>> walk? The idea that we get it by first trying to get the previous
>>> object, and then if that fails getting the next object seems
>>> counterintuitive.
>>
>> To respond to your points out of order:
>>
>> - I accept that "rhashtable_walk_prev" is not a perfect name.  It
>>   suggests a stronger symmetry with rhasthable_walk_next than actually
>>   exist.  I cannot think of a better name, but I think the
>>   description "Return the previously returned object if it is
>>   still in the table" is clear and simple and explains the name.
>>   I'm certainly open to suggestions for a better name.
>>
>> - I don't think it is meaningful to talk about a "current" element in a
>>   table where asynchronous insert/remove is to be expected.
>>   The best we can hope for is a "current location" is the sequence of
>>   objects in the table - a location which is after some objects and
>>   before all others.  rhashtable_walk_next() returns the next object
>>   after the current location, and advances the location pointer past
>>   that object.
>>   rhashtable_walk_prev() *doesn't* return the previous object in the
>>   table.  It returns the previously returned object. ("previous" in
>>   time, but not in space, if you like).
>>
>> - rhashtable_walk_peek() currently does one of two different things.
>>   It either returns the previously returned object (iter->p) if that
>>   is still in the table, or it find the next object, steps over it, and
>>   returns it.
>>
>> - I would like to suggest that when an API acts on a iterator object,
>>   the question of whether or not the iterator is advanced *must* be a
>>   fundamental question, not one that might change from time to time.
>>
>> Maybe a useful way forward would be for you to write documentation for
>> the rhashtable_walk_peek() interface which correctly describes what it
>> does and how it is used.  Given that, I can implement that interface
>> with the stability improvements that I'm working on.
>>
>
> Here's how it's documented currently:
>
> "rhashtable_walk_peek - Return the next object but don't advance the iterator"
>
> I don't see what is incorrect about that. Peek returns the next object
> in the walk, however does not move the iterator past that object, so
> sucessive calls to peek return the same object. In other words it's a
> way to inspect the next object but not "consume" it. This is what is
> needed when netlink returns in the middle of a walk. The last object
> retrieved from the table may not have been processed completely, so it
> needs to be the first one processed on the next invocation to netlink.
>
> This is also easily distinguishable from
>
> "rhashtable_walk_next - Return the next object and advance the iterator"
>
> Where the only difference is that peek and walk is that, walk advances
> the iterator and peek does not. Hence why "peek" is a descriptive name
> for what is happening.
>

btw, we are using rhashtable_walk_peek with ILA code that hasn't been
upstreamed yet. I'll (re)post the patches shortly, this demonstates
why we need the peek functionality. If you think that
rhashtable_walk_peek is nothing more than an inline that does "return
rhashtable_walk_prev(iter) ? : rhashtable_walk_next(iter);" then maybe
we could redefine rhashtable_walk_peek to be that. But, then I'll ask
what the use case is for rhashtable_walk_prev as a standalone
function? We created rhashtable_walk_peek for the netlink walk problem
and I don't think any of the related use cases would ever call
rhashtable_walk_prev without the rhashtable_walk_next fallback.

Tom

> Tom
>
>> Thanks,
>> NeilBrown