lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] soc: fsl: dpio: QMAN performance improvement. Function pointer indirection.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:02 PM Youri Querry <youri.querry_1@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> We are making the access decision in the initialization and
> setting the function pointers accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Youri Querry <youri.querry_1@nxp.com>
> ---
> drivers/soc/fsl/dpio/qbman-portal.c | 451 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> drivers/soc/fsl/dpio/qbman-portal.h | 129 ++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 507 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)

While merging pull requests, I came across some style issues with this driver.
I'm pulling it anyway, but please have another look and fix these for the next
release, or send a follow-up patch for the coming merge window.

>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/fsl/dpio/qbman-portal.c b/drivers/soc/fsl/dpio/qbman-portal.c
> index 5a37ac8..0ffe018 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/fsl/dpio/qbman-portal.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/fsl/dpio/qbman-portal.c
> @@ -83,6 +83,82 @@ enum qbman_sdqcr_fc {
> qbman_sdqcr_fc_up_to_3 = 1
> };
>
> +/* Internal Function declaration */
> +static int qbman_swp_enqueue_direct(struct qbman_swp *s,
> + const struct qbman_eq_desc *d,
> + const struct dpaa2_fd *fd);
> +static int qbman_swp_enqueue_mem_back(struct qbman_swp *s,
> + const struct qbman_eq_desc *d,
> + const struct dpaa2_fd *fd);
> +static int qbman_swp_enqueue_multiple_direct(struct qbman_swp *s,
> + const struct qbman_eq_desc *d,
> + const struct dpaa2_fd *fd,
> + uint32_t *flags,
> + int num_frames);
> +static int qbman_swp_enqueue_multiple_mem_back(struct qbman_swp *s,
> + const struct qbman_eq_desc *d,
> + const struct dpaa2_fd *fd,
> + uint32_t *flags,
> + int num_frames);

Please try to avoid all static forward declarations. The coding style for the
kernel generally mandates that you define the functions in the order they
are used in, and have no such declarations, unless there is a recursion
that requires it. If you do have recursion, then please add a comment that
explains how you limit it to avoid overrunning the kernel stack.

> +const struct dpaa2_dq *qbman_swp_dqrr_next_direct(struct qbman_swp *s);
> +const struct dpaa2_dq *qbman_swp_dqrr_next_mem_back(struct qbman_swp *s);

Forward declarations for non-static functions in C code are much
worse, you should
never need these. If a function is shared between files, then put the
declaration
into a header file that is included by both, to ensure the prototypes match, and
if it's only used here, then make it 'static'.

> +/* Function pointers */
> +int (*qbman_swp_enqueue_ptr)(struct qbman_swp *s,
> + const struct qbman_eq_desc *d,
> + const struct dpaa2_fd *fd)
> + = qbman_swp_enqueue_direct;
> +
> +int (*qbman_swp_enqueue_multiple_ptr)(struct qbman_swp *s,
> + const struct qbman_eq_desc *d,
> + const struct dpaa2_fd *fd,
> + uint32_t *flags,
> + int num_frames)
> + = qbman_swp_enqueue_multiple_direct;

This looks like you just have an indirect function pointer with a
single possible
implementation. This is less of a problem, but until you have a way to safely
override these at runtime, it may be better to simplify this by using direct
function calls.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-26 11:08    [W:0.089 / U:11.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site