Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147815-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 02:04:30 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seq_file: Optimize seq_puts()
Message-ID: <20240417010430.GB2118490@ZenIV>
References: <5c4f7ad7b88f5026940efa9c8be36a58755ec1b3.1704374916.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
 <4b1a4cc5-e057-4944-be69-d25f28645256@wanadoo.fr>
 <20240415210035.GW2118490@ZenIV>
 <ba306b2a1b5743bab79b3ebb04ece4df@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ba306b2a1b5743bab79b3ebb04ece4df@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:56:51PM +0000, David Laight wrote:

> > static inline void seq_puts(struct seq_file *m, const char *s)
> 
> That probably needs to be 'always_inline'.

What for?  If compiler fails to inline it (and I'd be very surprised
if that happened - if s is not a constant string, we get a straight call
of __seq_puts() and for constant strings it boils down to call of
seq_putc(m, constant) or seq_write(m, s, constant)), nothing bad
would happen; we'd still get correct behaviour.

> > {
> >	if (!__builtin_constant_p(*s))
> > 		__seq_puts(m, s);
> > 	else if (s[0] && !s[1])
> > 		seq_putc(m, s[0]);
> > 	else
> > 		seq_write(m, s, __builtin_strlen(s));
> > }
> 
> You missed seq_puts(m, "");

Where have you seen one?  And if it gets less than optimal, who cares?

> Could you do:
> 	size_t len = __builtin_strlen(s);
> 	if (!__builtin_constant_p(len))
> 		__seq_puts(m, s);
> 	else switch (len){
> 	case 0: break;
> 	case 1: seq_putc(m, s[0]);
> 	default: seq_write(m, s, len);
> 	}

Umm...  That's probably OK, but I wonder how useful would that
be...