Re: [PATCH v7 06/16] tracepoint: use new hashtable implementation

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
> >> <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > * Sasha Levin (levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx) 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 <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  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 <linux/slab.h>
> >> >>  #include <linux/sched.h>
> >> >>  #include <linux/static_key.h>
> >> >> +#include <linux/hashtable.h>
> >> >>
> >> >>  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
--
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/