Re: [PATCH] pipe_read: don't wake up the writer if the pipe is still full

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/03, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> ENTIRELY UNTESTED, but it seems to generate ok code. It might even
> generate better code than what we have now.

Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

but I have another question...

>  static inline bool pipe_readable(const struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
>  {
> -	unsigned int head = READ_ONCE(pipe->head);
> -	unsigned int tail = READ_ONCE(pipe->tail);
> +	union pipe_index idx = { READ_ONCE(pipe->head_tail) };

I thought this is wrong, but then I noticed that in your version
->head_tail is the 1st member in this union.

Still perhaps

	union pipe_index idx = { .head_tail = READ_ONCE(pipe->head_tail) };

will look more clear?

> +/*
> + * Really only alpha needs 32-bit fields, but
> + * might as well do it for 64-bit architectures
> + * since that's what we've historically done,
> + * and it makes 'head_tail' always be a simple
> + * 'unsigned long'.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> +  typedef unsigned int pipe_index_t;
> +#else
> +  typedef unsigned short pipe_index_t;
> +#endif

I am just curious, why we can't use "unsigned short" unconditionally
and avoid #ifdef ?

Is "unsigned int" more efficient on 64-bit?

Oleg.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux