Linux Power Management development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: yuankuiz@codeaurora.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 06:40:56 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804190639410.2830@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5341b3b1945c4c1dbf7b356b1a7a4bd6ce304287.camel@perches.com>



On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 17:07 +0800, yuankuiz@codeaurora.org wrote:
> > Hi julia,
> >
> > On 2018-04-15 05:19 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 08:22 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 09:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > > > We already have some 500 bools-in-structs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I got at least triple that only in include/
> > > > > > so I expect there are at probably an order
> > > > > > of magnitude more than 500 in the kernel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suppose some cocci script could count the
> > > > > > actual number of instances.  A regex can not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I got 12667.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please post the cocci script?
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure to understand the issue.  Will using a bitfield help if there
> > > > > are no other bitfields in the structure?
> > > >
> > > > IMO, not really.
> > > >
> > > > The primary issue is described by Linus here:
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384
> > > >
> > > > I personally do not find a significant issue with
> > > > uncontrolled sizes of bool in kernel structs as
> > > > all of the kernel structs are transitory and not
> > > > written out to storage.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose bool bitfields are also OK, but for the
> > > > RMW required.
> > > >
> > > > Using unsigned int :1 bitfield instead of bool :1
> > > > has the negative of truncation so that the uint
> > > > has to be set with !! instead of a simple assign.
> > >
> > > At least with gcc 5.4.0, a number of structures become larger with
> > > unsigned int :1. bool:1 seems to mostly solve this problem.  The
> > > structure
> > > ichx_desc, defined in drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c seems to become larger
> > > with
> > > both approaches.
> >
> > [ZJ] Hopefully, this could make it better in your environment.
> >       IMHO, this is just for double check.
>
> I doubt this is actually better or smaller code.
>
> Check the actual object code using objdump and the
> struct alignment using pahole.

I didn't have a chance to try it, but it looks quite likely to result in a
smaller data structure based on the other examples that I looked at.

julia

>
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
> > index 4f6d643..b46e170 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
> > @@ -70,6 +70,18 @@ static const u8 avoton_reglen[3] = {
> >   #define ICHX_READ(reg, base_res)       inl((reg) + (base_res)->start)
> >
> >   struct ichx_desc {
> > +       /* GPO_BLINK is available on this chipset */
> > +       bool uses_gpe0:1;
> > +
> > +       /* Whether the chipset has GPIO in GPE0_STS in the PM IO region
> > */
> > +        bool uses_gpe0:1;
> > +
> > +        /*
> > +         * Some chipsets don't let reading output values on GPIO_LVL
> > register
> > +         * this option allows driver caching written output values
> > +         */
> > +        bool use_outlvl_cache:1;
> > +
> >          /* Max GPIO pins the chipset can have */
> >          uint ngpio;
> >
> > @@ -77,24 +89,12 @@ struct ichx_desc {
> >          const u8 (*regs)[3];
> >          const u8 *reglen;
> >
> > -       /* GPO_BLINK is available on this chipset */
> > -       bool have_blink;
> > -
> > -       /* Whether the chipset has GPIO in GPE0_STS in the PM IO region
> > */
> > -       bool uses_gpe0;
> > -
> >          /* USE_SEL is bogus on some chipsets, eg 3100 */
> >          u32 use_sel_ignore[3];
> >
> >          /* Some chipsets have quirks, let these use their own
> > request/get */
> >          int (*request)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset);
> >          int (*get)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset);
> > -
> > -       /*
> > -        * Some chipsets don't let reading output values on GPIO_LVL
> > register
> > -        * this option allows driver caching written output values
> > -        */
> > -       bool use_outlvl_cache;
> >   };
> >
> >
> > ZJ
>

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-19  4:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-10  7:33 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped yuankuiz
2018-04-10  7:45 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10  8:51   ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10  8:54     ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10  7:55 ` Subject: [PATCH] " Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10  8:12   ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10  8:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-04-10  8:15   ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10  9:10     ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 10:07       ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 11:06         ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 14:08           ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 14:49             ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 23:09               ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 23:20                 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20  1:47                   ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20  6:44                     ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 19:24                       ` Joe Perches
2018-04-25  7:01                         ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 11:26         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 12:07           ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 12:26             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 12:33   ` Subject: [PATCH] " Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 15:14     ` Joe Perches
2018-04-10 16:30       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 15:41     ` [PATCH] checkpatch: whinge about bool bitfields Joe Perches
2018-04-10 18:19       ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions Joe Perches
2018-04-10 21:39         ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-10 21:53           ` Joe Perches
2018-04-10 22:00             ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-11  8:15               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-11 16:29                 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-11 16:51                   ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12  6:22                     ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-12  6:42                       ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12  7:03                         ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-12  8:13                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-14 21:19                         ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-17  9:07                           ` yuankuiz
2018-04-18 18:38                             ` Joe Perches
2018-04-19  4:40                               ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2018-04-19  4:51                                 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-19  5:16                                   ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-19  6:48                                     ` yuankuiz
2018-04-19 10:42                                       ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20  1:31                                         ` yuankuiz
2018-04-11 17:00                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12  7:47                     ` Ingo Molnar
2018-04-12  8:11                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12  9:35                       ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-12 11:50                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 12:01                           ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 12:08                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 12:38                               ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 16:47                               ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-12 11:52                         ` Kalle Valo

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 \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.20.1804190639410.2830@hadrien \
    --to=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apw@canonical.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=yuankuiz@codeaurora.org \
    /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