From: Gabriel Kerneis <gabriel@kerneis.info>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Charlie Shepherd <charlie@ctshepherd.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] Convert BlockDriver to explicit coroutine annotations
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:27:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130808062711.GB4736@kerneis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130807193025.GB16226@stefanha-thinkpad.hitronhub.home>
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 09:30:25PM +0200, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about removing coroutine_fn annotations from a
> function when it does not yield or call other coroutine_fn functions.
>
> These functions were probably written as part of a coroutine code path.
> The coroutine_fn annotation tells me I'm in coroutine context.
No, it tells you it is forbidden to call this function from outside coroutine
context. Which is false: if the function never yields, it is definitely correct
to call from somewhere else (unless there is some other invariant in qemu about
coroutine context?).
> By removing this information those modifying the code now need to
> convert it back to coroutine_fn after auditing callers before they can
> use coroutine context.
I don't understand this. You mean someone who, later, would decide to make a
version of the function that yields? In that case, wouldn't it make sense to
introduce an alternative coroutine_fn counter-part? (I see, however, how line of
reasoning might have led to the "dynamic functions" maze).
> I'd compare this to a comment that says "lock foo is held across this
> function" but the function doesn't use anything that lock foo protects.
> Removing the comment isn't really helpful, you are throwing away
> information that can be useful when modifying the function.
Except that the function might also makes sense outside of coroutine context,
and you are forcing people to allocate a spurious coroutine if they want to
use it.
Note that I'm arguing for the sake of defining precisely what Qemu developpers
expect when they read or write "coroutine_fn". As long as we can agree on that
point, and get it documented in coroutine.h, I'm fine. From a performance
point-of-view, it matters only for the CPC backend and there aren't that many
spuriously-annotated functions anyway. We could even benchmark the overhead at
the end of the GSoC, but I don't expect it to be significant (if there were
dozens of them, it would be a different story).
Best,
--
Gabriel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-08 6:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-05 18:44 [Qemu-devel] RFC: [PATCH 0/5] Explicitly annotating coroutine_fn functions Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 18:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] Add an explanation of when a function should be marked coroutine_fn Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-06 8:39 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2013-08-08 1:20 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 18:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] qemu_coroutine_self should not be marked coroutine_fn as it cannot yield Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-07 19:18 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2013-08-07 22:13 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-08 1:29 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-08 6:16 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-08 9:10 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-08 9:12 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-08 1:25 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 18:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] Convert BlockDriver to explicit coroutine annotations Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 19:23 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-05 19:33 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 20:05 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-06 9:04 ` Kevin Wolf
2013-08-07 19:30 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2013-08-08 1:31 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-08 6:27 ` Gabriel Kerneis [this message]
2013-08-06 9:24 ` Kevin Wolf
2013-08-08 1:14 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 18:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Convert block functions to coroutine versions Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 20:01 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-06 9:36 ` Kevin Wolf
2013-08-08 1:17 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 18:44 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/5] Convert block layer callers' annotations Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 20:15 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-08 1:19 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-05 19:25 ` [Qemu-devel] RFC: [PATCH 0/5] Explicitly annotating coroutine_fn functions Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-06 7:06 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2013-08-06 9:37 ` Kevin Wolf
2013-08-08 1:22 ` Charlie Shepherd
2013-08-08 7:15 ` Kevin Wolf
2013-08-08 9:36 ` Charlie Shepherd
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=20130808062711.GB4736@kerneis.info \
--to=gabriel@kerneis.info \
--cc=charlie@ctshepherd.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@gmail.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).