Re: [PATCH 1/5] rcusync: introduce struct rcu_sync_ops

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Add the new struct rcu_sync_ops which holds sync/call methods, and
> turn the function pointers in rcu_sync_struct into the single pointer
> to struct rcu_sync_ops.
>
> +struct rcu_sync_ops {
> +       void (*sync)(void);
> +       void (*call)(struct rcu_head *, void (*)(struct rcu_head *));
> +};
> +
>  struct rcu_sync_struct {
>         int                     gp_state;
>         int                     gp_count;
> @@ -12,43 +17,9 @@ struct rcu_sync_struct {
>         int                     cb_state;
>         struct rcu_head         cb_head;
>
> -       void (*sync)(void);
> -       void (*call)(struct rcu_head *, void (*)(struct rcu_head *));
> +       struct rcu_sync_ops     *ops;

Ugh.

This interface pretty much guarantees that a compiler can never do
anything clever, like know that "hey, you used a static initializer on
this thing, and the fields are const, so now know statically what the
functions are, and I can just turn the indirect jumps into direct
jumps".

I'm not sure gcc is actually that clever, but by making it this kind
of ops pointer, I *guarantee* that gcc can never do it.

How about you make the rule be:

 - get rid of the stupid "type" enum index thing

 - get rid of the "init" thing that sets pointers in the dynamic data
structures. Get rid of the pointer too.

 - instead, use a "static const" type descriptor for each type (it
approaches being your "rcu_sync_ops" structure). Pass this in as an
argument to all the functions (use a #define per type or something, so
that users don't need to do this by hand)

 - now every single user passes in that type descriptor.

 - together with using a few inline functions, suddenly the "indirect"
jumps through this type descriptor end up actually being nice direct
compile-time constants: iow, they get turned into direct jumps.

Tadaa. You actually get good code generation, and you use *less*
dynamic memory since you don't have to have this pointer to the
descriptor.

                Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/