Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1501662

Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

From SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?
Date 2016-10-17 09:50 +0200
Message-ID <staQi-wi-41@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <spjSa-2Un-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <ssOZs-3nb-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <ssWWZ-8mi-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <ssXgm-h3-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <st97Q-7NQ-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


>>> Does it improve code? Does it improve anything?
>>
>> Yes. - I got such an impression.
>>
>> * Is it more efficient to call the function "seq_printf" for the desired data processing
>>   for a single character than to pass it to the function "" in a string?
>>
>> * Will the required data transfer shrink a bit for the affected functions because of
>>   such a change?
>>
> Which are questions _you_ should be able to answer.

I wonder that the answers are not obvious for you already.

Calling the function "seq_putc" will be more efficient than "seq_printf"
in this case because of the following reasons.

1. How does the distribution look like for supported processor architectures
   where the data transfer for bytes (as a function call parameter)
   is faster than for (string) pointers?

2. Did anybody measure already how many the execution times can vary
   for these functions?

3. seq_printf() provides more functionality as this kind of programming
   interface was designed for a bigger purpose.
   How much do you care for consequences when such general functions
   are called with input data they were not designed for mainly?

4. The seq_putc() implementation is so simple.
   http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/fs/seq_file.c?v=4.8#L657

   Where do you get doubts about its efficiency for the data processing
   of a single character?


> It's your patch, after all.

Yes. - I published a special update suggestion once again.


> Once you do (and prove that the answer is 'yes' to the above two
> questions) the patch will be applied.

How do you think about to share a bit more from your software development
and testing experience?
Which call frequencies do you observe for the affected functions?

1. raid1_status
2. raid10_status
3. raid5_status

Regards,
Markus

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-16 10:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-16 19:00 +0200
    Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-16 19:20 +0200
      Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-16 19:20 +0200
      Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-17 08:00 +0200
        Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-17 09:50 +0200
          Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-17 10:20 +0200
            Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-17 11:10 +0200
              Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-17 12:00 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-17 13:20 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-17 13:50 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-17 16:10 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-17 16:40 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-17 17:40 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-17 18:10 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-17 19:20 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-18 20:30 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-10-20 14:30 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at> - 2016-10-17 14:20 +0200
                Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions? Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2016-10-17 16:10 +0200

csiph-web