From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754778AbaE2ACk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 28 May 2014 20:02:40 -0400
Received: from lgeamrelo04.lge.com ([156.147.1.127]:55784 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo04.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752714AbaE2ACi (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 28 May 2014 20:02:38 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.220.181
X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@gmail.com
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] perf tools: Cache dso data file descriptor
References: <1400174615-2121-1-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org>
	<1400174615-2121-7-git-send-email-jolsa@kernel.org>
	<87tx8chvzb.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
	<20140527073738.GA12920@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 09:02:36 +0900
In-Reply-To: <20140527073738.GA12920@krava.brq.redhat.com> (Jiri Olsa's
	message of "Tue, 27 May 2014 09:37:38 +0200")
Message-ID: <87sinth2oz.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 27 May 2014 09:37:38 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:05:28AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Jiri,
>> 
>> On Thu, 15 May 2014 19:23:27 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> 
>> [SNIP]
>> > +static void data_close(void)
>> > +{
>> > +	bool cache_fd = may_cache_fd();
>> > +
>> > +	if (!cache_fd)
>> > +		close_first_dso();
>> > +}
>> 
>> Why do you do this at close()?  As long as there's no attempt to open a
>> new file, we can keep existing fd, no?
>
> so the way it works now is:
>
>  - we keep up to the 'RLIMIT_NOFILE / 2' of open dso objects
>  - if we try to open dso and it fails, because we are out of
>    file descriptors, we close dso objects and try to reopen
>    (check do_open function)
>  - when we close the dso object we check if number of opened
>    dso objects is below 'RLIMIT_NOFILE / 2'.. if it is, we keep
>    the dso opened, if not we close first dso in the list
>
> util/dso.h tries to describe that

Yes, I know.  But my question is why do this at close()?  Isn't it
sufficient to check the file limit at open() and close previous one if
necessary?

>
>> 
>> > +
>> > +void dso__data_close(struct dso *dso)
>> > +{
>> > +	if (dso->data.fd >= 0)
>> > +		data_close();
>> > +}
>> 
>> Hmm.. it's confusing dso__data_close(dso) closes an other dso rather
>> than the given dso.  And this dso__data_close() is not paired with any
>> _open() also these close calls make me confusing which one to use. ;-p
>
> thats due to the caching.. as explained above
>
> About the pairing.. originally the interface was only dso__data_fd
> that opened and returned fd, which the caller needed to close.
>
> I added dso__data_close so we could keep track of file descriptors.
>
> I could add dso__data_open I guess, but it is dso__data_fd which is
> needed for elf interface anyway.

I'd rather suggest dropping the open/close idiom for this case since
it's confusing.  What about get/put or get_fd/put_fd?

Thanks,
Namhyung