On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 02:21:10AM +0000, Hao Xiang wrote:
> +/**
> + * @brief Performs buffer zero comparison on a DSA batch task asynchronously.
> + *
> + * @param batch_task A pointer to the batch task.
> + * @param buf An array of memory buffers.
> + * @param count The number of buffers in the array.
> + * @param len The buffer length.
> + *
> + * @return Zero if successful, otherwise non-zero.
> + */
> +int
> +buffer_is_zero_dsa_batch_async(struct dsa_batch_task *batch_task,
> + const void **buf, size_t count, size_t len)
It says it's "async", but then..
> +{
> + if (count <= 0 || count > batch_task->batch_size) {
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + assert(batch_task != NULL);
> + assert(len != 0);
> + assert(buf != NULL);
> +
> + if (count == 1) {
> + /* DSA doesn't take batch operation with only 1 task. */
> + buffer_zero_dsa_async(batch_task, buf[0], len);
> + } else {
> + buffer_zero_dsa_batch_async(batch_task, buf, count, len);
> + }
> +
> + buffer_zero_dsa_wait(batch_task);
... it waits always.
Wrong function name?
> + buffer_zero_cpu_fallback(batch_task);
Is this introducing yet another path even if it internally still uses
buffer_is_zero()?
Can we allow buffer_is_zero_dsa_batch_async() (or when it's renamed) fail
directly with a hint that it should fallback? Ultimately something like:
if (dsa_is_running() && zero_page_detect_dsa(p)) {
/* Succeeded */
return;
}
/* Use cpu detection by default, or as fallback */
zero_page_detect_cpu();
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> #endif
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>
>
--
Peter Xu
