From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com (mail-lj1-f194.google.com
 [209.85.208.194])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC3BF469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:54:18 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id y6so9664002lji.0
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 23:54:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:54:16 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200214075416.GS21061@uranus>
References: <20200213205618.7982-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <20200213205618.7982-2-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <46c82f5e-5e4c-ec4a-b8ce-b999e6a6230c@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46c82f5e-5e4c-ec4a-b8ce-b999e6a6230c@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v7 1/2] fiber: set diagnostics at
	madvise/mprotect failure
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:26:04AM +0100, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> Thanks for the fixes!
> 
> > @@ -1007,6 +1035,8 @@ fiber_stack_watermark_create(struct fiber *fiber)
> >  static void
> >  fiber_stack_destroy(struct fiber *fiber, struct slab_cache *slabc)
> >  {
> > +	static const int mprotect_flags = PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE;
> > +
> 
> Why is it static? From what I know, when it is static we don't
> have a guarantee, that it won't occupy memory in the .data section.

it is not about memory occupation but rather init it once instead
of doing so during function prologue. It actually depends on compiler
and modern ones would simply optimize this assignment.

Actually there is one hidden idea -- R|W is initial flags the 'small'
uses when allocates memory that's why I mention this variable in
comment.

> Even though here it is clearly not necessary. Wouldn't just const
> be enough? Why was not it possible to leave these flags inlined in
> fiber_mprotect() call? They are not used anywhere else. PROT_NONE,
> for example, is left inlined.

PROT_NONE is special, it is unrelated to 'small'.

	Cyrill