On 28.07.2016 07:55, Kent Overstreet wrote:

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 05:16:36PM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:

quoted

So here is another attempt which does half the proposed changes. And before you
point out that it looks still ugly, let me explain some reasons. The goal for me
would be to have something as small as possible to be acceptable as stable change.
And the part about putting a bio on the stack and using submit_bio_wait: I
believe you meant in read_super to replace the __bread. I was thinking about
that but in the end it seemed to make the change unnecessary big. Whether using
__bread or submit_bio_wait, in both cases and without needing to make more
changes on the write side, read_super has to return the in-memory and on-disk
variant of the superblock. So as long as nothing that is related to __bread is
leaked out of read_super, it is much better than what is there now. And I remain
as small as possible for the delta.

I like that approach much better. I suppose it's not _strictly_ necessary to rip
out the __bread()...

Only other comment is that you shouldn't have to pass the buffer to
__write_super() - I'd just move the bch_bio_map() call to when the struct
cache/cached_dev is being initialized (or rip it out and initialize the bvec by
hand) and never touch it after that.

Hm, doing that would save three simple changes to add a new argument to that
private functions at the cost of haven the map call twice and a (more)
complicated calculation of the

quoted

So there is one part of the patch which I find hard to do in a better manner but
is a bit ugly: and that is to sanely free the sb_disk_data blob on all error
paths but not on success when it is assigned to either cache or cached_dev.
Could possibly pass the address of the pointer and then clear it inside the
called functions. Not sure that would be much less strange...

Yeah that is a hassle - that's why in the 4k superblocks patch in bcache-dev I
added that "disk_sb" struct - it owns the buffer and random other crap. You
could read that patch for ideas if you want, look at how it transfers ownership
of the disk_sb. 

I had a look but it felt like I could get into too much follow-up changes going
that path. But I think I got it simpler now. One note about that area: both
register calls can run into problems but only one actually returns that status.
And both do not seem to free the allocated structures (cache or cache_dev). It
is at least not obvious whether this is ever done.
I working around this by moving the assignment of the buffer page and the
mapping to a place where an error exit no longer is possible. So the release
functions will only see a non NULL pointer if things went well (reality required
to revise that a little bit as one of the register calls that can fail is
actually doing the write).

So now there is just one oddness: when I am testing this (unfortunately right
now I only have a normal 4k case), after calling make-bache with cache and
backing device, this all looks great and debugging shows the __write_super being
called. But reading the from userspace will return the old data until I stop the
bcache device and unregister the cache (which does not show any further writes).
I cannot decide what I should think here...

-Stefan