From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Consolidate Linux readahead() implementations
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:24:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7240bee-cf16-8c9c-de3f-6ba88d129a66@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160923141154.GA970@yury-N73SV>
On 23/09/2016 11:11, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:32:35AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, unfortunately tile seems to get its own readahead definition.
>> However I think it should not prevent us to use my previous strategy,
>> we can follow the SH example for pread (where it adds a dummy argument
>> before offset), and do something as:
>>
>> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tile/readahead.c
>>
>> #include <sysdep.h>
>>
>> #ifndef _LP64
>> /* Although tile 32-bit ABI passed 64-bit arguments in even registers,
>> readahead interface does not follow this convention. */
>> # undef __ALIGNMENT_ARG
>> #endif
>>
>> #include <sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/readhead.c>
>
> Currently it looks like this to me (see below). If you think that separated file
> is better than new option - I'm OK with it, but I think it's strange because in
> other patches of series you introduce options (if I'm not mistake).
I prefer to not add any more __ASSUME macro until it is more general
and for this specific case (tile seems the only supported ABI that
implements readhead different than usual ABI).
>
> We also have 2 another implementations - in linux/wordsize-64/syscalls.list
> and linux/mips/mips64/n32/syscalls.list.
>
> I think wordsize-64 is safe to generalize, but I'm worry about mips64. If we'll
> choose adding new options and so having a single file, it seems, we'll have to
> add another option for mips64/n32, like this:
My understanding is mipc64n32 adds it on syscall list to avoid current
default Linux implementation where it splits the off64_t (since mips64n32
passes off64_t in only one register afaik). I think it is safe here,
since SYSCALL_LL64 for mips64n32 will correctly pass only one argument
instead of splitting it.
>
> #if __ASSUME_READAHEAD_NO_PAIRS
> # define SYSCALL_LL64(val) (val)
> #endif
>
> If we choose 3 implementations, we can introduce no option, but have
> generic, tile and mips separated versions.
>
> Yury.
>
> --
> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h
> index 71ce57a..ba7d745 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h
> @@ -50,6 +50,11 @@
> #define __ASSUME_ST_INO_64_BIT 1
> #endif
>
> +#ifndef __ASSUME_READAHEAD_ALIGN
> +/* readahead() adds padding to registers if this control is enabled. */
> +# define __ASSUME_READAHEAD_ALIGN 1
> +#endif
> +
> /* The statfs64 syscalls are available in 2.5.74 (but not for alpha). */
> #define __ASSUME_STATFS64 1
>
> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/readahead.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/readahead.c
> index 92e5428..eea3142 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/readahead.c
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/readahead.c
> @@ -23,16 +23,20 @@
> #include <sysdep.h>
> #include <sys/syscall.h>
>
> +#include <kernel-features.h>
>
> #ifdef __NR_readahead
>
> +#if !__ASSUME_READAHEAD_ALIGN
> +# undef __ALIGNMENT_ARG
> +# define __ALIGNMENT_ARG
> +#endif
> +
> ssize_t
> __readahead (int fd, off64_t offset, size_t count)
> {
> - return INLINE_SYSCALL (readahead, 4, fd,
> - __LONG_LONG_PAIR ((off_t) (offset >> 32),
> - (off_t) (offset & 0xffffffff)),
> - count);
> + return INLINE_SYSCALL_CALL (readahead, fd, __ALIGNMENT_ARG
> + SYSCALL_LL64 (offset));
> }
> #else
> ssize_t
> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tile/kernel-features.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tile/kernel-features.h
> index ded0e43..15ad2d3 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tile/kernel-features.h
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tile/kernel-features.h
> @@ -24,4 +24,5 @@
> #ifndef _LP64
> # define __ASSUME_ALIGNED_REGISTER_PAIRS 1
> # define __ASSUME_FADVISE64_64_NO_ALIGN 1
> +# define __ASSUME_READAHEAD_ALIGN 0
> #endif
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-23 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-22 20:44 Yury Norov
2016-09-22 20:59 ` Dmitry V. Levin
2016-09-22 21:26 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-09-22 21:36 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-09-22 23:21 ` Yury Norov
2016-09-23 6:08 ` Florian Weimer
2016-09-23 12:45 ` Yury Norov
2016-09-23 13:32 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-09-23 14:12 ` Yury Norov
2016-09-23 14:24 ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2016-09-23 15:45 ` Yury Norov
2016-09-23 19:50 ` Adhemerval Zanella
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b7240bee-cf16-8c9c-de3f-6ba88d129a66@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=cmetcalf@mellanox.com \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=ynorov@caviumnetworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).