Message-ID: <1351715463.23980.6.camel@wall-e>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kfifo: round up the fifo size power of 2
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:31:03 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20121030235210.4dfc6ef7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1351238218-22648-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
	 <20121029135935.bb8b0b2a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	 <20121031055916.GC29509@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
	 <1351665033.23165.6.camel@wall-e>
	 <20121030235210.4dfc6ef7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2329
Lines: 57

Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 23:52 -0700 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:30:33 +0100 Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Yes, and I guess the same to give them a 64-element one.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If there's absolutely no prospect that the kfifo code will ever support
> > > > 100-byte fifos then I guess we should rework the API so that the caller
> > > > has to pass in log2 of the size, not the size itself.  That way there
> > > > will be no surprises and no mistakes.
> > > > 
> > > > That being said, the power-of-2 limitation isn't at all intrinsic to a
> > > > fifo, so we shouldn't do this.  Ideally, we'd change the kfifo
> > > > implementation so it does what the caller asked it to do!
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with removing the power-of-2 limitation. Stefani, what's your
> > > comment on that?
> > > 
> > 
> > You can't remove the power-of-2-limitation, since this would result in a
> > performance decrease (bit wise and vs. modulo operation).
> 
> Probably an insignificant change in performance.
> 
> It could be made much smaller by just never doing the modulus operation
> - instead do
> 
> 	if (++index == max)
> 		index = 0;
> 
> this does introduce one problem: it's no longer possible to distinguish
> the "full" and "empty" states by comparing the head and tail indices. 
> But that is soluble.
> 

And you will increase the code size, since kfifo_put and kfifo_get are
inline code. Also the speculative execution path of modern CPUs must
kick away the pipeline in case of are false branch prediction.
 
> > Andrew is right, this is an API miss design.  So it would be good to
> > rework the kfifo_init () and kfifo_alloc() to pass in log2 of the size,
> > not the size itself.
> 
> The power-of-2 thing is just a restriction in the current
> implementation - it's not a good idea to cement that into the
> interface.  Of course, it could later be uncemented if the
> implementation's restriction was later relaxed.

The power-of-2 thing is a design restriction, a balance between
performance and code size and usability.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/