[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220430223128.GB3871052@euler>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:31:28 -0700
From: Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
aolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 1/1] net: ethernet: ocelot: remove the need
for num_stats initializer
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 09:33:45PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:47:35AM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > > struct ocelot_stat_layout {
> > > > u32 offset;
> > > > + u32 flags;
> > >
> > > Was it really necessary to add an extra u32 to struct ocelot_stat_layout?
> > > Couldn't you check for the end of stats by looking at stat->name[0] and
> > > comparing against the null terminator, for an empty string?
> >
> > I considered this as well. I could either have explicitly added the
> > flags field, as I did, or implicitly looked for .name == NULL (or
> > name[0] == '\0' as you suggest).
>
> No, you cannot check for .name == NULL. The "name" member of struct
> ocelot_stat_layout is most definitely not NULL, but has the value of the
> memory address of the first char from that array. Contrast this with
> "char *name", where a NULL comparison can indeed be made.
My apologies - I had the structure wrong in my head and thought it was a
const char *. Checking for NULL is clearly not an option.
>
> > I figured it might be better to make this an explicit relationship by
> > way of flags - but I'm happy to change OCELOT_STAT_END and for_each_stat
> > to rely on .name if you prefer.
>
> I would have understood introducing a flag to mark the last element of
> an array as special (as opposed to introducing a dummy extra element).
> But even that calculation would have been wrong.
>
> Before:
>
> pahole -C ocelot_stat_layout drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.o
> struct ocelot_stat_layout {
> u32 offset; /* 0 4 */
> char name[32]; /* 4 32 */
>
> /* size: 36, cachelines: 1, members: 2 */
> /* last cacheline: 36 bytes */
> };
>
> After:
>
> pahole -C ocelot_stat_layout drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.o
> struct ocelot_stat_layout {
> u32 offset; /* 0 4 */
> u32 flags; /* 4 4 */
> char name[32]; /* 8 32 */
>
> /* size: 40, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
> /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */
> };
>
> For example, vsc9959_stats_layout has 92 elements (93 with the dummy one
> you've added now). The overhead of 4 bytes per element amounts to 368
> extra bytes. Whereas a single dummy element at the end would have
> amounted to just 36 extra bytes.
>
> With your approach, what we get is 372 extra bytes, so worst of both worlds.
Understood. I'll send an update momentarily. I also didn't know about
'pahole' which looks to be a useful tool! Thanks again for the
feedback.
>
> > > > char name[ETH_GSTRING_LEN];
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > +#define OCELOT_STAT_END { .flags = OCELOT_STAT_FLAG_END }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists