On 06.07.24 00:36, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 7/3/24 7:56 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
#define MC_BATCH 32
-#define MC_DEBUG 0
-
#define MC_ARGS (MC_BATCH * 16)
struct mc_buffer {
unsigned mcidx, argidx, cbidx;
struct multicall_entry entries[MC_BATCH];
-#if MC_DEBUG
- struct multicall_entry debug[MC_BATCH];
- void *caller[MC_BATCH];
-#endif
unsigned char args[MC_ARGS];
struct callback {
void (*fn)(void *);
@@ -50,13 +46,84 @@ struct mc_buffer {
} callbacks[MC_BATCH];
};
+struct mc_debug_data {
+ struct multicall_entry debug[MC_BATCH];
'entries'? It's a mc_debug_data's copy of mc_buffer's entries.
Yes, this is better.
Also, would it be better to keep these fields as a struct of scalars and instead
have the percpu array of this struct? Otherwise there is a whole bunch of
[MC_BATCH] arrays, all of them really indexed by the same value. (And while at
it, there is no reason to have callbacks[MC_BATCH] sized like that -- it has
nothing to do with batch size and can probably be made smaller)
As today the mc_buffer's entries are copied via a single memcpy(), there
are 3 options:
- make mc_debug_data a percpu pointer to a single array, requiring to
copy the mc_buffer's entries in a loop
- let struct mc_debug_data contain two arrays (entries[] and struct foo {}[],
with struct foo containing the other pointers/values)
- keep the layout as in my patch
Regarding the callbacks: I think the max number of callbacks is indeed MC_BATCH,
as for each batch member one callback might be requested. So I'd rather keep it
the way it is today.
+ void *caller[MC_BATCH];
+ size_t argsz[MC_BATCH];
+};
+
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mc_buffer, mc_buffer);
+static struct mc_debug_data __percpu *mc_debug_data;
+static struct mc_debug_data mc_debug_data_early __initdata;
How about (I think this should work):
static struct mc_debug_data __percpu *mc_debug_data __refdata =
&mc_debug_data_early;
Then you won't need get_mc_debug_ptr().
I like this idea.
Juergen
