Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib/test_bitmap: add tests for bitmap_{read,write}()

[Alexander Potapenko]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:44 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:54:59AM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:02 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 05:14:55PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So e.g. for compressing something into a 16-byte buffer using bitmaps
> > > > I'd need to:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Allocate the buffer: buf = kmem_cache_alloc(...)
> > > > 2) Allocate the bitmap: bitmap = bitmap_alloc(16*8, ...)
> > > > 3) Fill the bitmap: mte_compress_to_buf(..., bitmap, 16)
> > > > 4) Copy the bitmap contents to the buffer: bitmap_to_arr64(buf, bitmap, 16*8)
> > > > 5) Deallocate the bitmap: bitmap_free(bitmap)
> > > >
> > > > instead of:
> > > >
> > > > buf = kmem_cache_alloc(...)
> > > > mte_compress_to_buf(..., (unsigned long *)buf, 16)
> > > >
> > > > , correct?
> > > >
> > > > Given that the buffer contents are opaque and its size is aligned on 8
> > > > bytes, could it be possible to somehow adopt the `buf` pointer
> > > > instead?
> > >
> > > I didn't find an explicit typecasting where you're using
> > > mte_compress_to_buf(), but now after hard 2nd look I see...
> > >
> > > Firstly, now that in the documentation you are explicitly describing the
> > > return value of mte_compress() as 64-bit frame, the right way to go would
> > > be declaring the function as: u64 mte_compress(u8 *tags).
> >
> > Ack.
> >
> > > And the general pattern should be like this:
> > >
> > >   unsigned long mte_compress(u8 *tags)
> > >   {
> > >           DECLARE_BITMAP(tmp, MTECOMP_CACHES_MAXBITS);
> > >           void *storage;
> > >           ...
> > >           if (alloc_size < MTE_PAGE_TAG_STORAGE) {
> > >                   storage = kmem_cache_alloc(cache, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >                   mte_compress_to_buf(r_len, r_tags, r_sizes, tmp, alloc_size);
> > >
> > >                   switch (alloc_size) {
> > >                   case 16:
> > >                           bitmap_to_arr16(storage, tmp, 16);
> >
> > I might be missing something, but why do we need the switch at all?
> > The buffers we are allocating always contain a whole number of u64's -
> > cannot we just always call bitmap_to_arr64()?
> >
> > Note that for cases where alloc_size is > 8 we never make any
> > assumptions about the contents of @storage, and don't care much about
> > the byte order as long as swap decompression is done with the same
> > endianness (which is always the case).
> > (The case where alloc_size==8 is somewhat special, and needs more
> > accurate handling, because we do make assumptions about the bit layout
> > there).
>
> So, this is my fault, and I'm really sorry. I read that 16-byte as
> 16-bit, and mistaken everything else. Please scratch the above.
>
> If you allocate word-aligned memory, and it's a multiple of words,
> which is your case, and access it only using bitmap API like
> bitmap_read/write, everything should be fine.

Ok, fine, I'll stick to the current implementation then.