From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 478A346970E for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:51:49 +0300 (MSK) References: <20200123084445.7452-1-skaplun@tarantool.org> <290fd1a1-022d-d0cf-d823-df6008872029@tarantool.org> <20200129133609.GD547@tarantool.org> <82333230-a66a-0ae0-f57b-f9ab930b4608@tarantool.org> <20200131223014.GA18554@root> From: Leonid Vasiliev Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:51:47 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200131223014.GA18554@root> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] refactoring: drop excess 16Kb bss buffer List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Sergey Kaplun , tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Cc: Vladislav Shpilevoy On 2/1/20 1:30 AM, Sergey Kaplun wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for your feedback! > > On 30.01.20, Leonid Vasiliev wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> On 1/29/20 4:36 PM, Sergey Ostanevich wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Thanks for the patch! >>> >>> LGTM after updates below. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sergos >>> >>> >>> On 23 Jan 23:04, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: >>>> Hi! Thanks for the patch! >>>> >>>> I agree with everything what Leonid said. >>> >>> I will object both assertion and NULL handling. Just have a look: >>> >>>>> + char *backtrace_buf = (char *)static_alloc(SMALL_STATIC_SIZE); >>> >>> And in static_reserve(size_t size) called from static_alloc(): >>> >>> if (size > SMALL_STATIC_SIZE) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> is the only place NULL can be returned. No need to test if >>> SMALL_STATIC_SIZE > SMALL_STATIC_SIZE, just ask me :) >> >> Hmm, it's sounds like:"Client must known about implementation of library >> function". But implementation can be changed with the contract save. >> > > To be honest, I do not see any dependencies on internal API in this, > since the module determines SMALL_STATIC_SIZE and provides > > extern __thread char static_storage_buffer[SMALL_STATIC_SIZE]; > > - all of this is part of API, isn't it? > > Proposal: we can use sizeof(static_storage_buffer) to avoid usage > of "magic" SMALL_STATIC_SIZE. > Ok) Just for clarity. My point of view on an interface of small static_alloc function: "It's return a pointer which can be a NULL and I must to check it". In my mind the realization of the static_alloc can be changed to "return NULL;" and my code must continue to work fine. Your point of view: "static_alloc can alloc/reserve of size <= SMALL_STATIC_SIZE in any case and it's interface guarantees this". In this case I'm agree with Sergey Ostanevich. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 23/01/2020 09:44, Sergey Kaplun wrote: >>>>> We already have 12Kb thread-safe static buffer >>>>> in `lib/small/small/static.h`, that can be used instead of 16Kb >>>>> bss buffer in `src/lib/core/backtrace.cc` for backtrace payload. >>>>> Closes #4650 >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/skaplun/drop-bss-buff >>>>> issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4650 >>>>> >>>>> src/lib/core/backtrace.cc | 8 +++++--- >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/src/lib/core/backtrace.cc b/src/lib/core/backtrace.cc >>>>> index 77f77b05c..c70576b53 100644 >>>>> --- a/src/lib/core/backtrace.cc >>>>> +++ b/src/lib/core/backtrace.cc >>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ >>>>> >>>>> #include >>>>> #include >>>>> +#include >>>>> >>>>> #include >>>>> >>>>> @@ -47,6 +48,7 @@ >>>>> #include >>>>> >>>>> #include "small/region.h" >>>>> +#include "small/static.h" >>>>> /* >>>>> * We use a global static buffer because it is too late to do any >>>>> * allocation when we are printing backtrace and fiber stack is >>> >>> Just change "global static buffer" for the "static buffer interface". >>> >>>>> @@ -55,8 +57,6 @@ >>>>> >>>>> #define BACKTRACE_NAME_MAX 200 >>>>> >>>>> -static char backtrace_buf[4096 * 4]; >>>>> - >>>>> static __thread struct region cache_region; >>>>> static __thread struct mh_i64ptr_t *proc_cache = NULL; >>>>> >>>>> @@ -140,8 +140,10 @@ backtrace() >>>>> unw_getcontext(&unw_context); >>>>> unw_cursor_t unw_cur; >>>>> unw_init_local(&unw_cur, &unw_context); >>>>> + char *backtrace_buf = (char *)static_alloc(SMALL_STATIC_SIZE); >>>>> + assert(backtrace_buf); >>>>> char *p = backtrace_buf; >>>>> - char *end = p + sizeof(backtrace_buf) - 1; >>>>> + char *end = p + SMALL_STATIC_SIZE - 1; >>>>> int unw_status; >>>>> *p = '\0'; >>>>> while ((unw_status = unw_step(&unw_cur)) > 0) { >>>>>