On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:11:06 +0200 Janne Kulmala <janne.t.kulm...@tut.fi> wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 08:52 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:30:33 +0100 Stefani Seibold <stef...@seibold.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes, and I guess the same to give them a 64-element one.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If there's absolutely no prospect that the kfifo code will ever support
> >>>> 100-byte fifos then I guess we should rework the API so that the caller
> >>>> has to pass in log2 of the size, not the size itself. That way there
> >>>> will be no surprises and no mistakes.
> >>>>
> >>>> That being said, the power-of-2 limitation isn't at all intrinsic to a
> >>>> fifo, so we shouldn't do this. Ideally, we'd change the kfifo
> >>>> implementation so it does what the caller asked it to do!
> >>>
> >>> I'm fine with removing the power-of-2 limitation. Stefani, what's your
> >>> comment on that?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can't remove the power-of-2-limitation, since this would result in a
> >> performance decrease (bit wise and vs. modulo operation).
> >
> > Probably an insignificant change in performance.
> >
> > It could be made much smaller by just never doing the modulus operation
> > - instead do
> >
> > if (++index == max)
> > index = 0;
> >
>
> This can not be done, since the index manipulation kfifo does not use locks.
Oh come on. Look:
__kfifo->out++; \
and look:
* Note that with only one concurrent reader and one concurrent
* writer, you don't need extra locking to use these macro.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
