Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:15:23 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, 2.6] a simple FIFO implementation |
| |
this is nice, I had to write a ring buffer myself last month for bootcache (you can find the patch on l-k searching for "bootcache"). It was fun so I don't mind but certainly it took me a few reboots to make it work ;)
My main issue with this is that I don't like to use kmalloc, I expect most people will use a page anyways, I'm using alloc_page myself (and I may want to switch to vmalloc to get a larger buffer, that's fine for bootcache since the allocation is in a slow path). I wonder if it worth to generalize the allocator passing down a callback or something like that. I can still use kmalloc but it'd be just a waste of some memory and risk fragmentation for >PAGE_SIZE (OTOH the callback as well will waste some byte).
The other issue with the locking is that I will not need locking since I've my own external locking used for other stuff too that serializes the fifo as well, so I wonder if the "spinlock_t *" could as well be passed down to kfifo_get so I won't need to allocate the spinlock structure as well inside the kfifo. Otherwise I could start to use such a spinlock inside the kfifo for the external locking too (and then I could call only the __ functions), that means guys outside your kfifo.[ch] would use the kfifo->lock which doesn't sound that clean, kfifo using an external lock passed down by the caller as parameter looks more robust. - 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/
| |