From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/16] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:53:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20121029185319.GA21546@Krystal> References: <1351450948-15618-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <1351450948-15618-6-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <20121029113515.GB9115@Krystal> <20121029183157.GC3097@jtriplet-mobl1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: snitzer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, neilb-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org, fweisbec-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Trond.Myklebust-HgOvQuBEEgTQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, paul.gortmaker-CWA4WttNNZF54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, aarcange-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, rds-devel-N0ozoZBvEnrZJqsBc5GL+g@public.gmane.org, eric.dumazet-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, venkat.x.venkatsubra-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, ccaulfie-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org, dev-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org, ericvh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Josh Triplett , rostedt-nx8X9YLhiw1AfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, lw-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, teigland-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, edumazet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, ejt-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org To: Sasha Levin Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: dev-bounces-yBygre7rU0TnMu66kgdUjQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 01:29:24PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers > >> wrote: > >> > * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) wrote: > >> >> Switch tracepoints to use the new hashtable implementation. This reduces the amount of > >> >> generic unrelated code in the tracepoints. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > >> >> --- > >> >> kernel/tracepoint.c | 27 +++++++++++---------------- > >> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/kernel/tracepoint.c b/kernel/tracepoint.c > >> >> index d96ba22..854df92 100644 > >> >> --- a/kernel/tracepoint.c > >> >> +++ b/kernel/tracepoint.c > >> >> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ > >> >> #include > >> >> #include > >> >> #include > >> >> +#include > >> >> > >> >> extern struct tracepoint * const __start___tracepoints_ptrs[]; > >> >> extern struct tracepoint * const __stop___tracepoints_ptrs[]; > >> >> @@ -49,8 +50,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(tracepoint_module_list); > >> >> * Protected by tracepoints_mutex. > >> >> */ > >> >> #define TRACEPOINT_HASH_BITS 6 > >> >> -#define TRACEPOINT_TABLE_SIZE (1 << TRACEPOINT_HASH_BITS) > >> >> -static struct hlist_head tracepoint_table[TRACEPOINT_TABLE_SIZE]; > >> >> +static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(tracepoint_table, TRACEPOINT_HASH_BITS); > >> >> > >> > [...] > >> >> > >> >> @@ -722,6 +715,8 @@ struct notifier_block tracepoint_module_nb = { > >> >> > >> >> static int init_tracepoints(void) > >> >> { > >> >> + hash_init(tracepoint_table); > >> >> + > >> >> return register_module_notifier(&tracepoint_module_nb); > >> >> } > >> >> __initcall(init_tracepoints); > >> > > >> > So we have a hash table defined in .bss (therefore entirely initialized > >> > to NULL), and you add a call to "hash_init", which iterates on the whole > >> > array and initialize it to NULL (again) ? > >> > > >> > This extra initialization is redundant. I think it should be removed > >> > from here, and hashtable.h should document that hash_init() don't need > >> > to be called on zeroed memory (which includes static/global variables, > >> > kzalloc'd memory, etc). > >> > >> This was discussed in the previous series, the conclusion was to call > >> hash_init() either way to keep the encapsulation and consistency. > >> > >> It's cheap enough and happens only once, so why not? > > > > Unnecessary work adds up. Better not to do it unnecessarily, even if by > > itself it doesn't cost that much. > > > > It doesn't seem that difficult for future fields to have 0 as their > > initialized state. > > Let's put it this way: hlist requires the user to initialize hlist > head before usage, therefore as a hlist user, hashtable implementation > must do that. > > We do it automatically when the hashtable user does > DEFINE_HASHTABLE(), but we can't do that if he does > DECLARE_HASHTABLE(). This means that the hashtable user must call > hash_init() whenever he uses DECLARE_HASHTABLE() to create his > hashtable. > > There are two options here, either we specify that hash_init() should > only be called if DECLARE_HASHTABLE() was called, which is confusing, > inconsistent and prone to errors, or we can just say that it should be > called whenever a hashtable is used. > > The only way to work around it IMO is to get hlist to not require > initializing before usage, and there are good reasons that that won't > happen. Hrm, just a second here. The argument about hash_init being useful to add magic values in the future only works for the cases where a hash table is declared with DECLARE_HASHTABLE(). It's completely pointless with DEFINE_HASHTABLE(), because we could initialize any debugging variables from within DEFINE_HASHTABLE(). So I take my "Agreed" back. I disagree with initializing the hash table twice redundantly. There should be at least "DEFINE_HASHTABLE()" or a hash_init() (for DECLARE_HASHTABLE()), but not useless execution initialization on top of an already statically initialized hash table. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com