lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] USB: f_mass_storage: dynamic buffers for better alignment
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:09:55AM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> "Static" buffers in fsg_buffhd structure (ie. fields which are arrays
>> rather then pointers to dynamically allocated memory) are not aligned
>> to any "big" power of two which may lead to poor DMA performance

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:21 +0100, Felipe Balbi <me@felipebalbi.com> wrote:
> not so true as you can add __attribute__ ((aligned(32))) to those.

I admit, I haven't thought about that. Some fields rearrangement
could help avoid some padding but yes, it can be done.

However, there is one more thing I've had in mind. Each buffer
is 4 pages (16 KiB) and there are two such buffers in struct
fsg_common therefore the whole size of the structure is
9 pages (> 32 KiB).

I've been simply concerned about using kamlloc() for such big
structures so in the end decided to split it into 3 allocations.

Maybe I'm overeating though? Or maybe vmalloc() would solve those
problems? But then again, vmalloc() could degrade DMA performance
on systems w/o scatter-gather.

What do you think?

>> bh = common->buffhds;
>> - i = FSG_NUM_BUFFERS - 1;
>> - do {
>> + i = FSG_NUM_BUFFERS;
>> + for (i = FSG_NUM_BUFFERS;; ++bh) {

> something like
>
> for (i = 0; i < FSG_NUM_BUFFERS; i++, ++bh) {
>
> wouldn't it do it ??

I admit I'm a bit addicted to "downwards to zero" loops and avoiding
checking of the condition prior to the first iteration. (As such I
often use do-while where others would use for.)

Besides counting to zero is not really an issue here. I didn't
particularly fancy the "bh[-1]" that have to be used if the break
is not inside the loop, ie:

bh = common->buffhds;
rc = -ENOMEM;
for (i = FSG_NUM_BUFFERS; i--; ++bh) {
bh->buf = kmalloc(FSG_BUFLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
if (unlikely(!bh->buf))
goto error_release;
bh->next = bh + 1;
}
bh[-1].next = common->buffhds;

Note also that the last bh->next is assigned twice.

So personally I'd still stick with my version but since
readability is important how about:

bh = common->buffhds;
rc = -ENOMEM;
i = FSG_NUM_BUFFERS;
for(;;) {
bh->buf = kmalloc(FSG_BUFLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
if (unlikely(!bh->buf))
goto error_release;
if (!--i)
break;
bh->next = bh + 1;
++bh;
}
bh->next = common->buffhds;

What do you think?

--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +---[mina86@mina86.com]---[mina86@jabber.org]---ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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: 2010-03-15 20:23    [W:0.051 / U:27.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site