From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:27:11 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: Re: [tarantool-patches] [rfc 3/4] core/fiber: Put static watermark into stack to track its usage Message-ID: <20190305082711.GL13301@uranus.lan> References: <20190302125524.279852704@gmail.com> <20190302130034.050488016@gmail.com> <20190305082029.GL21955@chai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190305082029.GL21955@chai> To: Konstantin Osipov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com List-ID: On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 11:20:29AM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > > As a policy we write meaningful comments for every function, static or not, > obvious or not. The idea of such a comment is to reflect the > author's intent and technical trade-offs considered when designing > a function. The comment should preferably be concise, however. > > > +/* > > + * Random values generated with uuid. > > + * Try to fit a cache line. > > I don't understand this comment. Since you're putting a poison-gap > between each number, how could you possibly fit a cache line? size of the poison_pool itself, we actively access this array, so better keep it small enough > > + */ > > +static const uint64_t poison_pool[] = { > > + 0x74f31d37285c4c37, 0xb10269a05bf10c29, > > + 0x0994d845bd284e0f, 0x9ffd4f7129c184df, > > + 0x357151e6711c4415, 0x8c5e5f41aafe6f28, > > + 0x6917dd79e78049d5, 0xba61957c65ca2465, > > +}; > > + > > +/* > > + * We poison by 8 bytes as it natural for stack > > + * step on x86-64. Also 128 byte gap between > > + * poison values should cover a common cases. > > > + /** Stack watermark addr for overflow detection. */ > > + void *stack_wmark_ofl; > > Generally we try to avoid abbreviations unless really necessary. > Why not simply stack_overflow_watermark? Well, as to me it is too long, but sure, will update. Cyrill