On 2023-10-24 at 12:26:12 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>There are unnecessary nested calls in fill_buf.c:
> - run_fill_buf() calls fill_cache()
> - alloc_buffer() calls malloc_and_init_memory()
>
>Simplify the code flow and remove those unnecessary call levels by
>moving the called code inside the calling function.
>
>Resolve the difference in run_fill_buf() and fill_cache() parameter
>name into 'buf_size' which is more descriptive than 'span'.
>
>Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvi...@linux.intel.com>
>---
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 58 +++++++---------------
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>index f9893edda869..9d0b0bf4b85a 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c
>@@ -51,29 +51,6 @@ static void mem_flush(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> sb();
> }
>
>-static void *malloc_and_init_memory(size_t buf_size)
>-{
>- void *p = NULL;
>- uint64_t *p64;
>- size_t s64;
>- int ret;
>-
>- ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
>- if (ret < 0)
>- return NULL;
>-
>- p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
>- s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
>-
>- while (s64 > 0) {
>- *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
>- p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>- s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>- }
>-
>- return p;
>-}
>-
> static int fill_one_span_read(unsigned char *buf, size_t buf_size)
> {
> unsigned char *end_ptr = buf + buf_size;
>@@ -137,20 +114,33 @@ static int fill_cache_write(unsigned char *buf, size_t
>buf_size, bool once)
>
> static unsigned char *alloc_buffer(size_t buf_size, int memflush)
> {
>- unsigned char *buf;
>+ void *p = NULL;
Is this initialization doing anything? "p" seems to be either overwritten or in
case of an error never accessed.
>+ uint64_t *p64;
>+ size_t s64;
>+ int ret;
>
>- buf = malloc_and_init_memory(buf_size);
>- if (!buf)
>+ ret = posix_memalign(&p, PAGE_SIZE, buf_size);
>+ if (ret < 0)
> return NULL;
>
>+ /* Initialize the buffer */
>+ p64 = (uint64_t *)p;
>+ s64 = buf_size / sizeof(uint64_t);
>+
>+ while (s64 > 0) {
>+ *p64 = (uint64_t)rand();
>+ p64 += (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>+ s64 -= (CL_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t));
>+ }
>+
> /* Flush the memory before using to avoid "cache hot pages" effect */
> if (memflush)
>- mem_flush(buf, buf_size);
>+ mem_flush(p, buf_size);
Wouldn't renaming "p" to "buf" keep this relationship with "buf_size" more
explicit?
Or is naming void pointers "buffers" not appropriate?
>
>- return buf;
>+ return p;
> }
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman
