On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 5:36 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 06:21:18PM -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 5:25 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Ok, so if it is checked earlier then we merely need an assert.
> > >
> > > if (flags & QIO_CHANNEL_WRITE_FLAG_ZERO_COPY) {
> > > #ifdef QEMU_MSG_ZEROCOPY
> > > sflags = MSG_ZEROCOPY;
> > > zero_copy_enabled = true;
> > > #else
> > > g_assert_unreachable();
> > > #endif
> > > > }
> >
> > Ok, I will add that in the next version.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > @@ -592,15 +594,13 @@ static ssize_t
> > > > > > qio_channel_socket_writev(QIOChannel *ioc,
> > > > > > return QIO_CHANNEL_ERR_BLOCK;
> > > > > > case EINTR:
> > > > > > goto retry;
> > > > > > -#ifdef QEMU_MSG_ZEROCOPY
> > > > > > case ENOBUFS:
> > > > > > - if (sflags & MSG_ZEROCOPY) {
> > > > > > + if (zero_copy_enabled) {
> > > > >
> > > > > if (flags & QIO_CHANNEL_WRITE_FLAG_ZERO_COPY)
> > > > >
> > > > > avoids the #ifdef without needing to add yet another
> > > > > variable expressing what's already expressed in both
> > > > > 'flags' and 'sflags'.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it does, but at the cost of not compiling-out the zero-copy part
> > > > when it's not supported,
> > > > since the QIO_CHANNEL_WRITE_FLAG_ZERO_COPY comes as a parameter. This
> > > > ends up
> > > > meaning there will be at least one extra test for every time this
> > > > function is called (the one in the next patch).
> > >
> > > The cost of a simple bit test is between negligible-and-non-existant
> > > with branch prediction. I doubt it would be possible to even measure
> > > it.
> >
> > Yeah, you are probably right on that.
> > So the main learning point here is that it's not worth creating a new
> > boolean for compiling-out
> > code that should not impact performance ?
>
> As ever "it depends" so there's no hard rule, and sometimes it can
> verge on bikeshed colouring :-)
>
> I didn't like the variable in this case, because it introduces a 3rd
> variable to the method for representing whether zero copy is need,
> which is excessive. I'm not a fan of redundancy as it can often then
> lead to inconsistency. So it would need a compelling reason why it is
> better, which is difficult for such a simple method. If the code was
> more complex, a variable might have benefit of clarity, but in this
> case IMHO it was just overkill.
I see. Thanks for the clarification!
Best regards,
Leo
>
> With regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
>
