From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Deduplicate io_*_prep calls?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:26:34 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 2/24/2020 6:50 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 24/02/2020 18:46, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/24/20 8:44 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Fine like this, though easier if you inline the patches so it's easier
>>>> to comment on them.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I suppose it's to hint a compiler, that opcode haven't been changed
>>> inside the first switch. And any compiler I used breaks analysis there
>>> pretty easy. Optimising C is such a pain...
>>
>> But if the choice is between confusion/fragility/performance vs obvious
>> and safe, then I'll go with the latter every time. We should definitely
>> not pass in req and opcode separately.
>
> Yep, and even better to go with the latter, and somehow hint, that it won't
> change. Though, never found a way to do that. Have any tricks in a sleeve?
It seems I have one. It can be done by using a const-attributed getter
function. And I see nothing against it in gcc manuals.
__attribute__((const))
static inline u8 io_get_opcode(struct io_kiocb *req)
{
return req->opcode;
}
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-25 9:26 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 [this message]
2020-02-27 21:06 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-24 16:53 ` Andres Freund
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] \
[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