There are unnecessary nested calls in fill_buf.c:
- run_fill_buf() calls fill_cache()
- alloc_buffer() calls malloc_and_init_memory()
Simplify the code flow and remove those unnecessary call levels by
moving the called code inside the calling function.
Resolve the difference in run_fill_buf() and fill_cache() parameter
name into 'buf_size' which is more descriptive than 'span'.
Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 58 +++++++---------------
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
index f9893edda869..9d0b0bf4b85a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
@@ -51,29 +51,6 @@ static void mem_flush(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
sb();
}
-static void *malloc_and_init_memory(size_t buf_size)
-{
- void *p = NULL;
- uint64_t *p64;
- size_t s64;
- int ret;
-
- ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
- if (ret < 0)
- return NULL;
-
- p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
- s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
-
- while (s64 > 0) {
- *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
- p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
- s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
- }
-
- return p;
-}
-
static int fill_one_span_read(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
{
unsigned char *end_ptr = buf + buf_size;
@@ -137,20 +114,33 @@ static int fill_cache_write(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size, bool once)
static unsigned char *alloc_buffer(size_t buf_size, int memflush)
{
- unsigned char *buf;
+ void *p = NULL;
+ uint64_t *p64;
+ size_t s64;
+ int ret;
- buf = malloc_and_init_memory(buf_size);
- if (!buf)
+ ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
+ if (ret < 0)
return NULL;
+ /* Initialize the buffer */
+ p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
+ s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
+
+ while (s64 > 0) {
+ *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
+ p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
+ s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
+ }
+
/* Flush the memory before using to avoid "cache hot pages" effect */
if (memflush)
- mem_flush(buf, buf_size);
+ mem_flush(p, buf_size);
- return buf;
+ return p;
}
-static int fill_cache(size_t buf_size, int memflush, int op, bool once)
+int run_fill_buf(size_t buf_size, int memflush, int op, bool once)
{
unsigned char *buf;
int ret;
@@ -164,16 +154,6 @@ static int fill_cache(size_t buf_size, int memflush, int op, bool once)
else
ret = fill_cache_write(buf, buf_size, once);
free(buf);
-
- return ret;
-}
-
-int run_fill_buf(size_t span, int memflush, int op, bool once)
-{
- size_t cache_size = span;
- int ret;
-
- ret = fill_cache(cache_size, memflush, op, once);
if (ret) {
printf("\n Error in fill cache\n");
return -1;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h
index a33f414f6019..08b95b5a4949 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ int write_bm_pid_to_resctrl(pid_t bm_pid, char *ctrlgrp, char *mongrp,
char *resctrl_val);
int perf_event_open(struct perf_event_attr *hw_event, pid_t pid, int cpu,
int group_fd, unsigned long flags);
-int run_fill_buf(size_t span, int memflush, int op, bool once);
+int run_fill_buf(size_t buf_size, int memflush, int op, bool once);
int resctrl_val(const char * const *benchmark_cmd, struct resctrl_val_param *param);
int mbm_bw_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd);
void tests_cleanup(void);
--
2.30.2
On 2023-10-24 at 12:26:12 +0300, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
>There are unnecessary nested calls in fill_buf.c:
> - run_fill_buf() calls fill_cache()
> - alloc_buffer() calls malloc_and_init_memory()
>
>Simplify the code flow and remove those unnecessary call levels by
>moving the called code inside the calling function.
>
>Resolve the difference in run_fill_buf() and fill_cache() parameter
>name into 'buf_size' which is more descriptive than 'span'.
>
>Signed-off-by: Ilpo J?rvinen <[email protected]>
>---
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 58 +++++++---------------
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>index f9893edda869..9d0b0bf4b85a 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>@@ -51,29 +51,6 @@ static void mem_flush(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> sb();
> }
>
>-static void *malloc_and_init_memory(size_t buf_size)
>-{
>- void *p = NULL;
>- uint64_t *p64;
>- size_t s64;
>- int ret;
>-
>- ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
>- if (ret < 0)
>- return NULL;
>-
>- p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
>- s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
>-
>- while (s64 > 0) {
>- *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
>- p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>- s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>- }
>-
>- return p;
>-}
>-
> static int fill_one_span_read(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> {
> unsigned char *end_ptr = buf + buf_size;
>@@ -137,20 +114,33 @@ static int fill_cache_write(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size, bool once)
>
> static unsigned char *alloc_buffer(size_t buf_size, int memflush)
> {
>- unsigned char *buf;
>+ void *p = NULL;
Is this initialization doing anything? "p" seems to be either overwritten or in
case of an error never accessed.
>+ uint64_t *p64;
>+ size_t s64;
>+ int ret;
>
>- buf = malloc_and_init_memory(buf_size);
>- if (!buf)
>+ ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
>+ if (ret < 0)
> return NULL;
>
>+ /* Initialize the buffer */
>+ p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
>+ s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
>+
>+ while (s64 > 0) {
>+ *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
>+ p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>+ s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>+ }
>+
> /* Flush the memory before using to avoid "cache hot pages" effect */
> if (memflush)
>- mem_flush(buf, buf_size);
>+ mem_flush(p, buf_size);
Wouldn't renaming "p" to "buf" keep this relationship with "buf_size" more
explicit?
Or is naming void pointers "buffers" not appropriate?
>
>- return buf;
>+ return p;
> }
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wiecz?r-Retman
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Maciej Wiecz?r-Retman wrote:
> On 2023-10-24 at 12:26:12 +0300, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> >There are unnecessary nested calls in fill_buf.c:
> > - run_fill_buf() calls fill_cache()
> > - alloc_buffer() calls malloc_and_init_memory()
> >
> >Simplify the code flow and remove those unnecessary call levels by
> >moving the called code inside the calling function.
> >
> >Resolve the difference in run_fill_buf() and fill_cache() parameter
> >name into 'buf_size' which is more descriptive than 'span'.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Ilpo J?rvinen <[email protected]>
> >---
> > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 58 +++++++---------------
> > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
> >index f9893edda869..9d0b0bf4b85a 100644
> >--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
> >+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
> >@@ -51,29 +51,6 @@ static void mem_flush(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> > sb();
> > }
> >
> >-static void *malloc_and_init_memory(size_t buf_size)
> >-{
> >- void *p = NULL;
> >- uint64_t *p64;
> >- size_t s64;
> >- int ret;
> >-
> >- ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
> >- if (ret < 0)
> >- return NULL;
> >-
> >- p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
> >- s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
> >-
> >- while (s64 > 0) {
> >- *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
> >- p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
> >- s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
> >- }
> >-
> >- return p;
> >-}
> >-
> > static int fill_one_span_read(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> > {
> > unsigned char *end_ptr = buf + buf_size;
> >@@ -137,20 +114,33 @@ static int fill_cache_write(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size, bool once)
> >
> > static unsigned char *alloc_buffer(size_t buf_size, int memflush)
> > {
> >- unsigned char *buf;
> >+ void *p = NULL;
>
> Is this initialization doing anything? "p" seems to be either overwritten or in
> case of an error never accessed.
I'm aware of that but the compiler is too stupid to know that p is
initialized if there's no error and spits out a warning so I'll have to
keep the unnecessary initialization.
> >+ uint64_t *p64;
> >+ size_t s64;
> >+ int ret;
> >
> >- buf = malloc_and_init_memory(buf_size);
> >- if (!buf)
> >+ ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
> >+ if (ret < 0)
> > return NULL;
> >
> >+ /* Initialize the buffer */
> >+ p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
> >+ s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
> >+
> >+ while (s64 > 0) {
> >+ *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
> >+ p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
> >+ s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
> >+ }
> >+
> > /* Flush the memory before using to avoid "cache hot pages" effect */
> > if (memflush)
> >- mem_flush(buf, buf_size);
> >+ mem_flush(p, buf_size);
>
> Wouldn't renaming "p" to "buf" keep this relationship with "buf_size" more
> explicit?
I'll change it to buf. This patch has a long history which preceeds the
change where I made the buffer ptr naming more consistent and I didn't
realize I departed here again from the consistent naming until you now
pointed it out.
--
i.