public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Deduplicate io_*_prep calls?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:53:34 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Hi,

On 2020-02-24 08:40:16 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Agree that the first patch looks fine, though I don't quite see why
> you want to pass in opcode as a separate argument as it's always
> req->opcode. Seeing it separate makes me a bit nervous, thinking that
> someone is reading it again from the sqe, or maybe not passing in
> the right opcode for the given request. So that seems fragile and it
> should go away.

Without extracting it into an argument the compiler can't know that
io_kiocb->opcode doesn't change between the two switches - and therefore
is unable to merge the switches.

To my knowledge there's no easy and general way to avoid that in C,
unfortunately. const pointers etc aren't generally a workaround, even
they were applicable here - due to the potential for other pointers
existing, the compiler can't assume values don't change.  With
sufficient annotations of pointers with restrict, pure, etc. one can get
it there sometimes.

Another possibility is having a const copy of the struct on the stack,
because then the compiler often is able to deduce that the value
changing would be undefined behaviour.


I'm not sure that means it's worth going for the separate argument - I
was doing that mostly to address your concern about the duplicated
switch cost.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-02-24 16:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-24  1:07 Deduplicate io_*_prep calls? Andres Freund
2020-02-24  3:17 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24  3:33   ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24  3:52     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24  7:12       ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24  9:10         ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:40         ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:44           ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:46             ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:50               ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 15:53                 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 15:56                   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 16:02                     ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 16:18                       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-24 17:08                         ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 17:16                           ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-25  9:26                 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-27 21:06                   ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 16:53           ` Andres Freund [this message]
2020-02-24 17:19             ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 17:30               ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-24 17:37               ` Pavel Begunkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox