From: Luke Parkin <luke.parkin@arm.com>
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org" <arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Track basic SCMI statistics
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:50:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f966bd1a-bbce-4ce0-9a67-c1423cc9cb2f@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZoPgHRl8FUo9-Xvz@pluto>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_DEBUG_STATISTICS
> static inline void scmi_log_stats(atomic_t *cnt)
> {
> atomic_inc(cnt);
> }
> #else
> static inline void scmi_log_stats(atomic_t *cnt) { }
> #endif
> but those calls can be split and placed alone where that some condition is
> already check normally as in as an example in scmi_handle_response():
>
> if (xfer->hdr.type == MSG_TYPE_DELAYED_RESP) {
> scmi_clear_channel(info, cinfo);
> complete(xfer->async_done);
> + scmi_log_stats(&info->stats.dlyd_response_ok);
> } else {
> complete(&xfer->done);
> + scmi_log_stats(&info->stats.response_ok);
> }
>
> ...what do you think, am I missing something else ?
Ah yeah, that looks better to me. I'll use that.
Thanks!
Luke
On 02/07/2024 12:10, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:57:23AM +0100, Luke Parkin wrote:
>>> Ok, so IMO, this is the main core thing to rework in this series: the
>>> "counting" operation/block should be defined as a macro so that it can
>>> be fully compiled out when STATS=n, because these are counters
>>> incremented on the hot path for each message, not just once in a while,
>>> so the above if(IS_ENABELD()) now will be there and evaluated even when
>>> STATS=n.
>>>
>>> Something like:
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_DEBUG_STATISTICS
>>> #define SCMI_LOG_STATS(counter) \
>>> <your magic here> \
>>> #else
>>> #define SCMI_LOG_STATS(counter)
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> .... I have not thought it through eh...so it could be radically
>>> different...the point is ... the counting machinery should just
>>> disappear at compile time when STATS=n
>>
>> Hey Cristian, Unless I've missed something, It looks like IS_ENABLED() does do
>> what you ask for.
>> In Documentation/process/coding-style.rst:1168 it reccomends using IS_ENABLED
>> for conditional compilation over #if and #ifdef, saying that the compiler will
>> constant-fold the conditional away.
>
> Yes indeed, it will be compiled out anyway, forgot that despite having
> it used myself a few lines below :D .... but from the readability standpoint,
> given that we will sprinkle this all over the code, wont be much clearer to
> conditionally define once for all an inline function (like mentioned at the
> start of that coding-style.rst paragraph) or a macro in a header (like common.h)
> to wrap the atomic_inc
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_DEBUG_STATISTICS
> static inline void scmi_log_stats(atomic_t *cnt)
> {
> atomic_inc(cnt);
> }
> #else
> static inline void scmi_log_stats(atomic_t *cnt) { }
> #endif
>
> and then just call it plainly wherever it needs, knowing that the compiler
> will equally compile it out all-over when STATS=n.
>
> ifdeffery is discouraged in the code flow but it is acceptable to define
> alternative nop fucntions in a header.
>
> Also because in some of the callsite you handle 2 stats with some ifcond
> (conditional on the IS_ENABLED that is good) and that could be a problem,
> but those calls can be split and placed alone where that some condition is
> already check normally as in as an example in scmi_handle_response():
>
> if (xfer->hdr.type == MSG_TYPE_DELAYED_RESP) {
> scmi_clear_channel(info, cinfo);
> complete(xfer->async_done);
> + scmi_log_stats(&info->stats.dlyd_response_ok);
> } else {
> complete(&xfer->done);
> + scmi_log_stats(&info->stats.response_ok);
> }
>
> ...what do you think, am I missing something else ?
>
> Thanks,
> Cristian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-02 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-01 14:28 [PATCH 0/3] Add Per-transport SCMI debug statistics Luke Parkin
2024-07-01 14:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] Add Kconfig option for scmi " Luke Parkin
2024-07-01 15:32 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-07-01 14:28 ` [PATCH 2/3] Track basic SCMI statistics Luke Parkin
2024-07-01 16:15 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-07-02 9:57 ` Luke Parkin
2024-07-02 11:10 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-07-02 12:50 ` Luke Parkin [this message]
2024-07-01 14:28 ` [PATCH 3/3] Create debugfs files for statistics Luke Parkin
2024-07-01 16:19 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-07-01 15:20 ` [PATCH 0/3] Add Per-transport SCMI debug statistics Cristian Marussi
2024-07-01 16:21 ` Cristian Marussi
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=f966bd1a-bbce-4ce0-9a67-c1423cc9cb2f@arm.com \
--to=luke.parkin@arm.com \
--cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
--cc=arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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