From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sebastien.dugue@bull.net,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: add prefetching to do_csum
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:17:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <527D38D5.7010408@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131108190710.GC16052@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
On 11/08/2013 11:07 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:51:07AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 11:25 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:07:38PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:02 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:19:23AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>>> __always_inline instead of inline
>>>>>> static __always_inline void prefetch_lines(const void *addr, size_t len)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> const void *end = addr + len;
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> buff doesn't need a void * cast in prefetch_lines
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I take back what I said here, we do need the cast, not for a conversion
>>>>> from unsigned char * to void *, but rather to discard the const qualifier
>>>>> without making the compiler complain.
>>>>
>>>> Not if the function is changed to const void *
>>>> and end is also const void * as shown.
>>>>
>>> Addr is incremented in the for loop, so it can't be const. I could add a loop
>>> counter variable on the stack, but that doesn't seem like it would help anything
>>
>> Perhaps you meant
>> void * const addr;
>> but that's not what I wrote.
>>
> No, I meant smoething like:
> static __always_inline void prefetch_lines(const void * addr, size_t len)
> {
> const void *tmp = (void *)addr;
> ...
> for(;tmp<end; tmp+=cache_line_size())
> ...
> }
>
>> Let me know if this doesn't compile.
>> It does here...
> Huh, it does. But that makes very little sense to me. by qualifying addr as
> const, how is the compiler not throwing a warning in the for loop about us
> incrementing that same variable?
>
As Joe is pointing out, you are confusing "const foo *tmp" with "foo *
const tmp". The former means: "tmp is a variable pointing to type const
foo". The latter means: "tmp is a constant pointing to type foo".
There is no problem modifying tmp in the former case; it prohibits
modifying *tmp. In the latter case modifying tmp is prohibited, but
modifying *tmp is just fine.
Now, "const char *" would arguably be more correct here since arithmetic
on void is a gcc extension, but the same argument applies there.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-08 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 105+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-11 16:51 [PATCH] x86: Run checksumming in parallel accross multiple alu's Neil Horman
2013-10-12 17:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-13 12:53 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-14 20:28 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-14 21:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-14 22:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-14 22:37 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-14 22:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-14 22:49 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-15 7:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-15 10:51 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-10-15 12:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-15 16:21 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-16 0:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-16 6:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-16 16:55 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-17 0:34 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-17 1:42 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-18 16:50 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-18 17:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-18 20:11 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-18 21:15 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-20 21:29 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-21 17:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-21 17:46 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-21 19:21 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-21 19:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-21 20:19 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-26 12:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-26 13:58 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-27 7:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-27 17:05 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-17 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-17 18:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-10-17 18:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-18 6:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-28 16:01 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-28 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-28 17:49 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-28 16:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-28 16:49 ` David Ahern
2013-10-28 17:46 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-28 18:29 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-29 8:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-29 11:20 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-29 11:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-29 11:49 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-29 12:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-29 13:07 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-29 13:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-29 13:20 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-29 14:17 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-29 14:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-29 20:26 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-31 10:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-31 14:33 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-01 9:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-01 14:06 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-29 14:12 ` David Ahern
2013-10-15 7:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-15 13:14 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-12 22:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-10-13 12:53 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-18 16:42 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-18 17:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-10-25 13:06 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-14 4:38 ` Andi Kleen
2013-10-14 7:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-14 21:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-15 13:17 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-14 20:25 ` Neil Horman
2013-10-15 7:12 ` Sébastien Dugué
2013-10-15 13:33 ` Andi Kleen
2013-10-15 13:56 ` Sébastien Dugué
2013-10-15 14:06 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-15 14:15 ` Sébastien Dugué
2013-10-15 14:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-15 14:52 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-10-15 16:02 ` Andi Kleen
2013-10-16 0:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-11-06 15:23 ` x86: Enhance perf checksum profiling and x86 implementation Neil Horman
2013-11-06 15:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] perf: Add csum benchmark tests to perf Neil Horman
2013-11-06 15:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: add prefetching to do_csum Neil Horman
2013-11-06 15:34 ` Dave Jones
2013-11-06 15:54 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-06 17:19 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-06 18:11 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-06 20:02 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-06 20:07 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-08 16:25 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-08 16:51 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-08 19:07 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-08 19:17 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-08 20:08 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-08 19:17 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2013-11-08 19:01 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-08 19:33 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-08 20:14 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-08 20:29 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-11 19:40 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-11 21:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-06 18:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-11-06 18:59 ` Neil Horman
2013-11-06 20:19 ` Andi Kleen
2013-11-07 21:23 ` Neil Horman
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=527D38D5.7010408@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@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
Powered by JetHome