[Devel] Re: [RFCv2][PATCH] flexible array implementation
Amerigo Wang
xiyou.wangcong at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 00:09:03 PDT 2009
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 03:00:17PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
>
>Changes from v1:
>- to vs too typo
>- added __check_part_and_nr() and gave it a warning
>- fixed off-by-one check on __nr_part_ptrs()
>- addedFLEX_ARRAY_INIT() macro
>- some kerneldoc comments about the capacity
> with various sized objects
>- comments to note lack of locking semantice
>
>--
>
>Once a structure goes over PAGE_SIZE*2, we see occasional
>allocation failures. Some people have chosen to switch
>over to things like vmalloc() that will let them keep
>array-like access to such a large structures. But,
>vmalloc() has plenty of downsides.
>
>Here's an alternative. I think it's what Andrew was
>suggesting here:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/2/518
>
>I call it a flexible array. It does all of its work in
>PAGE_SIZE bits, so never does an order>0 allocation.
>The base level has PAGE_SIZE-2*sizeof(int) bytes of
>storage for pointers to the second level. So, with a
>32-bit arch, you get about 4MB (4183112 bytes) of total
>storage when the objects pack nicely into a page. It
>is half that on 64-bit because the pointers are twice
>the size.
>
>The interface is dirt simple. 4 functions:
> alloc_flex_array()
> free_flex_array()
> flex_array_put()
> flex_array_get()
>
>put() appends an item into the array while get() takes
>indexes and does array-style access.
>
>One thought is that we should perhaps make the base
>structure half the size on 32-bit arches. That will
>ensure that someone testing on 32-bit will not get
>bitten by the size shrinking by half when moving to
>64-bit.
>
>We could also potentially just pass the "element_size"
>into each of the API functions instead of storing it
>internally. That would get us one more base pointer
>on 32-bit.
>
>The last improvement that I thought about was letting
>the individual array members span pages. In this
>implementation, if you have a 2049-byte object, it
>will only pack one of them into each "part" with
>no attempt to pack them. At this point, I don't think
>the added complexity would be worth it.
>
>Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>---
>
> linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/flex_array.h | 45 +++++
> linux-2.6.git-dave/lib/Makefile | 2
> linux-2.6.git-dave/lib/flex_array.c | 230 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff -puN /dev/null include/linux/flex_array.h
>--- /dev/null 2008-09-02 09:40:19.000000000 -0700
>+++ linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/flex_array.h 2009-07-21 14:55:35.000000000 -0700
>@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
>+#ifndef _FLEX_ARRAY_H
>+#define _FLEX_ARRAY_H
>+
>+#include <linux/types.h>
>+#include <asm/page.h>
>+
>+#define FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE PAGE_SIZE
>+#define FLEX_ARRAY_BASE_SIZE PAGE_SIZE
>+
>+struct flex_array_part;
>+
>+/*
>+ * This is meant too replace cases where an array-like
s/too/to/
>+ * structure has gotten to big to fit into kmalloc()
s/to big/too big/
>+ * and the developer is getting tempted to use
>+ * vmalloc().
>+ */
>+
>+struct flex_array {
>+ union {
>+ struct {
>+ int nr_elements;
>+ int element_size;
>+ struct flex_array_part *parts[0];
>+ };
>+ /*
>+ * This little trick makes sure that
>+ * sizeof(flex_array) == PAGE_SIZE
>+ */
>+ char padding[FLEX_ARRAY_BASE_SIZE];
>+ };
>+};
>+
>+#define FLEX_ARRAY_INIT(size, total) {{{\
>+ .element_size = (size), \
>+ .nr_elements = 0, \
>+}}}
>+
>+struct flex_array *flex_array_alloc(int element_size, int total, gfp_t flags);
>+void flex_array_free(struct flex_array *fa);
>+int flex_array_put(struct flex_array *fa, int element_nr, void *src, gfp_t flags);
>+int flex_array_append(struct flex_array *fa, void *src, gfp_t flags);
>+void *flex_array_get(struct flex_array *fa, int element_nr);
>+
>+#endif /* _FLEX_ARRAY_H */
>diff -puN /dev/null lib/flex_array.c
>--- /dev/null 2008-09-02 09:40:19.000000000 -0700
>+++ linux-2.6.git-dave/lib/flex_array.c 2009-07-21 14:52:09.000000000 -0700
>@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
>+/*
>+ * Flexible array managed in PAGE_SIZE parts
>+ *
>+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>+ * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>+ * (at your option) any later version.
>+ *
>+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
>+ *
>+ * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>+ * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
>+ * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
>+ *
>+ * Copyright IBM Corporation, 2009
>+ *
>+ * Author: Dave Hansen <dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>+ */
>+
>+#include <linux/flex_array.h>
>+#include <linux/slab.h>
>+#include <linux/stddef.h>
>+
>+struct flex_array_part {
>+ char elements[FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE];
>+};
>+
>+static inline int __elements_per_part(int element_size)
>+{
>+ return FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE / element_size;
>+}
>+
>+static inline int __nr_part_ptrs(void)
How about __nr_ptrs_in_part()?
>+{
>+ int element_offset = offsetof(struct flex_array, parts);
>+ int bytes_left = FLEX_ARRAY_BASE_SIZE - element_offset;
>+ return bytes_left / sizeof(struct flex_array_part *);
>+}
>+
>+/**
>+ * flex_array_alloc - allocate a new flexible array
>+ * @element_size: the size of individual elements in the array
>+ * @total: total number of elements that this should hold
>+ *
>+ * Note: all locking must be provided by the caller.
>+ *
>+ * We do not actually use @total to size the allocation at this
>+ * point. It is just used to ensure that the user does not try
>+ * to use this structure for something larger than it can handle
>+ * later on.
>+ *
>+ * The maximum number of elements is defined as: the number of
>+ * elements that can be stored in a page times the number of
>+ * page pointers that we can fit in the base structure or (using
>+ * integer math):
>+ *
>+ * (PAGE_SIZE/element_size) * (PAGE_SIZE-8)/sizeof(void *)
>+ *
>+ * Here's a table showing example capacities. Note that the maximum
>+ * index that the get/put() functions is just nr_objects-1.
>+ *
>+ * Element size | Objects | Objects |
>+ * PAGE_SIZE=4k | 32-bit | 64-bit |
>+ * ----------------------------------|
>+ * 1 byte | 4186112 | 2093056 |
>+ * 2 bytes | 2093056 | 1046528 |
>+ * 3 bytes | 1395030 | 697515 |
>+ * 4 bytes | 1046528 | 523264 |
>+ * 32 bytes | 130816 | 65408 |
>+ * 33 bytes | 126728 | 63364 |
>+ * 2048 bytes | 2044 | 10228 |
>+ * 2049 bytes | 1022 | 511 |
>+ * void * | 1046528 | 261632 |
>+ *
>+ * Since 64-bit pointers are twice the size, we lose half the
>+ * capacity in the base structure. Also note that no effort is made
>+ * to efficiently pack objects across page boundaries.
>+ */
>+struct flex_array *flex_array_alloc(int element_size, int total, gfp_t flags)
>+{
>+ struct flex_array *ret;
>+ int max_size = __nr_part_ptrs() * __elements_per_part(element_size);
>+
>+ /* max_size will end up 0 if element_size > PAGE_SIZE */
>+ if (total > max_size)
>+ return NULL;
>+ ret = kzalloc(sizeof(struct flex_array), flags);
>+ if (!ret)
>+ return NULL;
>+ ret->element_size = element_size;
>+ return ret;
>+}
>+
>+static int fa_element_to_part_nr(struct flex_array *fa, int element_nr)
>+{
>+ return element_nr / __elements_per_part(fa->element_size);
>+}
>+
>+void flex_array_free(struct flex_array *fa)
>+{
>+ int part_nr;
>+ int max_part;
>+
>+ /* keeps us from getting the index of -1 below */
>+ if (!fa->nr_elements)
>+ goto free_base;
>+
>+ /* we really want the *index* of the last element, thus the -1 */
>+ max_part = fa_element_to_part_nr(fa, fa->nr_elements-1);
>+ for (part_nr = 0; part_nr <= max_part; part_nr++)
>+ kfree(fa->parts[part_nr]);
>+free_base:
>+ kfree(fa);
>+}
>+
>+static int fa_index_inside_part(struct flex_array *fa, int element_nr)
>+{
>+ return (element_nr % __elements_per_part(fa->element_size));
>+}
>+
>+static int offset_inside_part(struct flex_array *fa, int element_nr)
How about index_in_part()?
>+{
>+ int part_offset = fa_index_inside_part(fa, element_nr);
>+ return part_offset * fa->element_size;
>+}
>+
>+static int __check_part_and_nr(struct flex_array *fa,
>+ int part_nr, int element_nr)
>+{
>+ if (part_nr >= __nr_part_ptrs() ||
>+ element_nr > fa->nr_elements) {
>+ WARN(1, "bad flexible array element number: %d > %d\n",
>+ element_nr, fa->nr_elements);
>+ return -EINVAL;
>+ }
>+ return 0;
>+}
>+
>+static struct flex_array_part *
>+__fa_get_part(struct flex_array *fa, int part_nr, gfp_t flags)
>+{
>+ struct flex_array_part *part = NULL;
>+ if (__check_part_and_nr(fa, part_nr, fa->nr_elements))
>+ return NULL;
>+ part = fa->parts[part_nr];
>+ if (!part) {
>+ part = kmalloc(FLEX_ARRAY_PART_SIZE, flags);
>+ if (!part)
>+ return NULL;
>+ fa->parts[part_nr] = part;
>+ }
>+ return part;
>+}
>+
>+/**
>+ * flex_array_put - copy data into the array at @element_nr
>+ * @src: address of data to copy into the array
>+ * @element_nr: index of the position in which to insert
>+ * the new element.
>+ *
>+ * Note that this *copies* the contents of @src into
>+ * the array. If you are trying to store an array of
>+ * pointers, make sure to pass in &ptr instead of ptr.
>+ *
>+ * Locking must be provided by the caller.
>+ */
>+int flex_array_put(struct flex_array *fa, int element_nr, void *src, gfp_t flags)
>+{
>+ int part_nr = fa_element_to_part_nr(fa, element_nr);
>+ struct flex_array_part *part;
>+ void *dst;
>+
>+ part = __fa_get_part(fa, part_nr, flags);
>+ if (!part)
>+ return -ENOMEM;
>+ dst = &part->elements[offset_inside_part(fa, element_nr)];
>+ memcpy(dst, src, fa->element_size);
>+ return 0;
>+}
>+
>+/**
>+ * flex_array_append - append a new member into the array
>+ * @src: address of data to copy into the array
>+ *
>+ * This will use the internally-remembered last position in
>+ * the array to choose an insertion point.
>+ *
>+ * Note that this *copies* the contents of @src into
>+ * the array. If you are trying to store an array of
>+ * pointers, make sure to pass in &ptr instead of ptr.
>+ *
>+ * Locking must be provided by the caller.
>+ */
>+int flex_array_append(struct flex_array *fa, void *src, gfp_t flags)
>+{
>+ int ret = flex_array_put(fa, fa->nr_elements, src, flags);
>+ if (!ret)
>+ fa->nr_elements++;
This looks ugly...
Why not just ++nr_elements in flex_array_put()?
>+ return ret;
>+}
>+
>+
>+/**
>+ * flex_array_get - pull data back out of the array
>+ * @element_nr: index of the element to fetch from the array
>+ *
>+ * Returns a pointer to the data at index @element_nr. Note
>+ * that this is a copy of the data that was passed in. If you
>+ * are using this to store pointers, you'll get back &ptr.
>+ *
>+ * Locking must be provided by the caller.
>+ */
>+void *flex_array_get(struct flex_array *fa, int element_nr)
>+{
>+ int part_nr = fa_element_to_part_nr(fa, element_nr);
>+ struct flex_array_part *part;
>+ int offset;
>+
>+ if (__check_part_and_nr(fa, part_nr, fa->nr_elements))
>+ return NULL;
>+ if (!fa->parts[part_nr])
>+ return NULL;
>+
>+ part = fa->parts[part_nr];
>+ offset = offset_inside_part(fa, element_nr);
>+ return &part->elements[offset_inside_part(fa, element_nr)];
'->nr_element' is corrected?
>+}
>diff -puN lib/Makefile~fa lib/Makefile
>--- linux-2.6.git/lib/Makefile~fa 2009-07-21 14:42:37.000000000 -0700
>+++ linux-2.6.git-dave/lib/Makefile 2009-07-21 14:42:37.000000000 -0700
>@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmd
> idr.o int_sqrt.o extable.o prio_tree.o \
> sha1.o irq_regs.o reciprocal_div.o argv_split.o \
> proportions.o prio_heap.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \
>- is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o
>+ is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o flex_array.o
>
> lib-$(CONFIG_MMU) += ioremap.o
> lib-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpumask.o
>diff -puN lib/radix-tree.c~fa lib/radix-tree.c
>diff -puN ./include/linux/radix-tree.h~fa ./include/linux/radix-tree.h
huh?? What is this?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list