mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RWSEM: Rewrite rwsem.c and rwsem-spinlock.c more simply.
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:27:35 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803250813190.19386@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87skyfgg4y.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:

> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> writes:
>
> > Rewrite these source files more simply by deleting the superfluous
> > "tsk" task_struct pointer and rephrasing in terms of the "current"
> > task pointer.
>
> This is likely a code pessimization because "current" is inline
> assembler and many gcc versions cannot CSE it.

i'm not sure what this means -- which of the transformations in that
patch is considered unsafe?  here's a typical simplification:

-       tsk = current;
-       set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+       set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);


  there's all sorts of usage of set_current_state() throughout the
tree.  how is simplifying the code in these two files in exactly the
same way any different?  or am i missing something because this
involves semaphores?

rday

p.s.  given this bit from sched.h:

...
#define __set_task_state(tsk, state_value)              \
        do { (tsk)->state = (state_value); } while (0)
#define set_task_state(tsk, state_value)                \
        set_mb((tsk)->state, (state_value))

...

#define __set_current_state(state_value)                        \
        do { current->state = (state_value); } while (0)
#define set_current_state(state_value)          \
        set_mb(current->state, (state_value))
...

it's not clear why set_current_state() and __current_state() are
defined the way they are when it would seem to be simpler (and less
error-prone) to just write:

#define __set_current_state(sv)  __set_task_state(current, sv)
#define set_current_state(sv)   set_task_state(current, sv)

  the law of parsimony and all that.  or, once again, is there
something subtle i'm not seeing?

--


========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
    Have classroom, will lecture.

http://crashcourse.ca                          Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================

  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-25 12:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-25 11:02 Robert P. J. Day
2008-03-25 12:08 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-25 12:27   ` Robert P. J. Day [this message]
2008-03-25 12:36     ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-25 12:42       ` Robert P. J. Day
2008-03-25 19:14         ` Andrew Morton

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=alpine.LFD.1.00.0803250813190.19386@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=rpjday@crashcourse.ca \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.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

Powered by JetHome