Re: [PATCH 3/4] zsmalloc use zs_handle instead of void *

[Minchan Kim]

On 05/16/2012 12:04 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

>>>
>>> The fix is of course to return a pointer (which your function
>>> declared), and instead do this:
>>>
>>> {
>>>       struct zs_handle *handle;
>>>
>>>       handle = zs_malloc(pool, size);
>>
>>
>> It's not a good idea.
>> For it, zs_malloc needs memory space to keep zs_handle internally.
>> Why should zsallocator do it? Just for zcache?
> 
> How different is from now? The zs_malloc keeps the handle internally
> as well - it just that is is a void * pointer. Internally, the
> ownership and the responsibility to free it lays with zsmalloc.


I don't get it. now zsmalloc doesn't keep the handle internally.
It just makes handle and return to caller.
About void* as return value, I think it's not good.
Return just struct zs_handle(NOT struct zs_handle *) or unsigned long would be good because
zsmalloc doesn't need keeping the handle internally at the cost of consume
memory space to store it.


> 
>> It's not good abstraction.
> 
> If we want good abstraction, then I don't think 'unsigned long' is
> either? I mean it will do for the conversion from 'void *'. Perhaps I
> am being a bit optimistic here - and I am trying to jam in this
> 'struct zs_handle' in all cases but in reality it needs a more
> iterative process. So first do 'void *' -> 'unsigned long', and then
> later on if we can come up with something more nicely that abstracts
> - then use that?
> .. snip ..
>>>> Why should zsmalloc support such interface?
>>>
>>> Why not? It is better than a 'void *' or a typedef.
>>>
>>> It is modeled after a pte_t.
>>
>>
>> It's not same with pte_t.
>> We normally don't use pte_val to (void*) for unique index of slot.
> 
> Right, but I thought we want to get rid of all of the '(void *)'
> usages and instead
> pass some opaque pointer.


opaque is good but pointer isn't good as handle, IMHO.
Value, not pointer would be better.
zsmalloc's goal is memory space efficiency so let's not consume unnecessary space for keeping
the handle in zsmalloc's internal

> 
>> The problem is that zcache assume handle of zsmalloc is a sizeof(void*)'s
>> unique value but zcache never assume it's a sizeof(void*).
> 
> Huh? I am parsing your sentence as: "zcache assumes .. sizeof(void *),
> but zcache never assumes its .. sizeof(void *)"?
> 
> Zcache has to assume it is a pointer. And providing a 'struct
> zs_handle *' would fit the bill?


Sorry for typo.
I mean zcache shouldn't assume handle of zsmalloc is void*.
And I prefer value rather than pointer. I already mentioned why I like it in above.

>>>
>>>
>>>> It's a zcache problem so it's desriable to solve it in zcache internal.
>>>
>>> Not really. We shouldn't really pass any 'void *' pointers around.
>>>
>>>> And in future, if we can add/remove zs_handle's fields, we can't make
>>>> sure such API.
>>>
>>> Meaning ... what exactly do you mean? That the size of the structure
>>> will change and we won't return the right value? Why not?
>>> If you use the 'zs_handle_to_ptr' won't that work? Especially if you
>>> add new values to the end of the struct it won't cause issues.
>>
>>
>> I mean we might change zs_handle to following as, in future.
>> (It's insane but who know it?)
> 
> OK, so BUILD_BUG(sizeof(struct zs_handle *) != sizeof(void *))
> with a big fat comment saying that one needs to go over the other users
> of zcache/zram/zsmalloc to double check?


If we will use unsigned long as handle, we don't need so BUILD_BUG_ON.

> 
> But why would it matter? The zs_handle would be returned as a pointer
> - so the size is the same to the caller.
> 
>>
>> struct zs_handle {
>>        int upper;
>>        int middle;
>>        int lower;
>> };
>>
>> How could you handle this for zs_handle_to_ptr?
> 
> Gosh, um, I couldn't :-) Well, maybe with something that does
>  return "upper | middle | lower", but yeah that is not the goal.
> 
> 
>>>>>> Its true that making it a real struct would prevent accidental casts
>>>>>> to void * but due to the above problem, I think we have to stick
>>>>>> with unsigned long.
>>>
>>> So the problem you are seeing is that you don't want 'struct zs_handle'
>>> be present in the drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc.h header file?
>>> It looks like the proper place.
>>
>>
>> No. What I want is to remove coupling zsallocator's handle with zram/zcache.
>> They shouldn't know internal of handle and assume it's a pointer.
> 
> I concur. And hence I was thinking that the 'struct zs_handle *'
> pointer would work.


Do you really hate "unsigned long" as handle?

> 
>>
>> If Nitin confirm zs_handle's format can never change in future, I prefer "unsigned long" Nitin suggested than (void *).
>> It can prevent confusion that normal allocator's return value is pointer for address so the problem is easy.
>> But I am not sure he can make sure it.
> 
> Well, everything changes over time  so putting a stick in the ground
> and saying 'this must
> be this way' is not really the best way.


Hmm, agree on your above statement but I can't imagine better idea.

> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
> Don't email: <a href=ilto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/