lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/11] Task watchers: Introduction
Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 09:04 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>> Matt Helsley wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 21:41 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>>>> Peter Williams wrote:
>>>>> Matt Helsley wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 15:41 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>>>>>>> On a related note, I can't see where the new task's notify field gets
>>>>>>> initialized during fork.
>>>>>> It's initialized in kernel/sys.c:notify_per_task_watchers(), which calls
>>>>>> RAW_INIT_NOTIFIER_HEAD(&task->notify) in response to WATCH_TASK_INIT.
>>>>> I think that's too late. It needs to be done at the start of
>>>>> notify_watchers() before any other watchers are called for the new task.
>>> I don't see why you think it's too late. It needs to be initialized
>>> before it's used. Waiting until notify_per_task_watchers() is called
>>> with WATCH_TASK_INIT does this.
>> I probably didn't understand the code well enough. I'm still learning
>> how it all hangs together :-).
>>
>>>> On second thoughts, it would simpler just before the WATCH_TASK_INIT
>>>> call in copy_process() in fork.c. It can be done unconditionally there.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>> That would work. It would not simplify the control flow of the code.
>>> The branch for WATCH_TASK_INIT in notify_per_task_watchers() is
>>> unavoidable; we need to call the parent task's chain in that case since
>>> we know the child task's is empty.
>>>
>>> It is also counter to one goal of the patches -- reducing the "clutter"
>>> in these paths. Arguably task watchers is the same kind of clutter that
>>> existed before. However, it is a means of factoring such clutter into
>>> fewer instances (ideally one) of the pattern.
>> Maybe a few comments in the code to help reviewers such as me learn how
>> it works more quickly would be worthwhile.
>
> Good point. I'll keep this in mind as I consider the multi-chain
> approach suggested by Andrew -- I suspect improvments in my commenting
> will be even more critical there.
>
>> BTW as a former user of PAGG, I think there are ideas in the PAGG
>> implementation that you should look at. In particular:
>>
>> 1. The use of an array of function pointers (one for each hook) can cut
>> down on the overhead. The notifier_block only needs to contain a
>> pointer to the array so there's no increase in the size of that
>> structure. Within the array a null pointer would mean "don't bother
>> calling". Only one real array needs to exist even for per task as
>> they're all using the same functions (just separate data). It removes
>> the need for a switch statement in the client's function as well as
>> saving on unnecessary function calls.
>
> I don't think having an explicit array of function pointers is likely
> to be as fast as a switch statement (or a simple branch) generated by
> the compiler.

With the array there's no need for any switch or branching. You know
exactly which function in the array to use in each hook.

>
> It doesn't save unecessary function calls unless I modify the core
> notifier block structure. Otherwise I still need to stuff a generic
> function into .notifier_call and from there get the pointer to the array
> to make the next call. So it adds more pointer indirection but does not
> reduce the number of intermediate function calls.

There comes a point when trying to reuse existing code is less cost
effective than starting over.

>
> As far as the multi-chain approach is concerned, I'm still leaning
> towards registering a single function with a mask describing what it
> wants to be notified of.

I think that will be less efficient than the function array.

>
>> 2. A helper mechanism to allow a client that's being loaded as a module
>> to visit all existing tasks and do whatever initialization it needs to
>> do. Without this every client would have to implement such a mechanism
>> themselves (and it's not pretty).
>
> Interesting idea. It should resemble existing macros. Something like:
> register_task_watcher(&my_nb, &unnoticed);
> for_each_unnoticed_task(unnoticed)
> ...

Something like that. It involved some tricky locking issues and was
reasonably complex (which made providing it a good option when compared
to each client implementing its own version). Rather than trying to do
this from scratch I'd advise getting a copy of the most recent PAGG
patches and using that as a model as a fair bit of effort was spent
ironing out all the problems involved. It's not as easy as it sounds.

Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-22 03:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site