Re: [PATCH] dax: Fix missed PMD wakeups

From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Boaz Harrosh <openosd@gmail.com>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	Robert Barror <robert.barror@intel.com>,
	Seema Pandit <seema.pandit@intel.com>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dax: Fix missed PMD wakeups
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:47:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jVARa38Qc4NjQ04wJ4ZKJ6On9BbJgoL95wQqU-p-Xp_w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190705191004.GC32320@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:10 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 04:27:14PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:14 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 06:54:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 03-07-19 20:27:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > So I think we're good for all current users.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed but it is an ugly trap. As I already said, I'd rather pay the
> > > > unnecessary cost of waiting for pte entry and have an easy to understand
> > > > interface. If we ever have a real world use case that would care for this
> > > > optimization, we will need to refactor functions to make this possible and
> > > > still keep the interfaces sane. For example get_unlocked_entry() could
> > > > return special "error code" indicating that there's no entry with matching
> > > > order in xarray but there's a conflict with it. That would be much less
> > > > error-prone interface.
> > >
> > > This is an internal interface.  I think it's already a pretty gnarly
> > > interface to use by definition -- it's going to sleep and might return
> > > almost anything.  There's not much scope for returning an error indicator
> > > either; value entries occupy half of the range (all odd numbers between 1
> > > and ULONG_MAX inclusive), plus NULL.  We could use an internal entry, but
> > > I don't think that makes the interface any easier to use than returning
> > > a locked entry.
> > >
> > > I think this iteration of the patch makes it a little clearer.  What do you
> > > think?
> > >
> >
> > Not much clearer to me. get_unlocked_entry() is now misnamed and this
>
> misnamed?  You'd rather it was called "try_get_unlocked_entry()"?

I was thinking more along the lines of
get_unlocked_but_sometimes_locked_entry(), i.e. per Jan's feedback to
keep the interface simple.