On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:13:28PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:56:30 +1100 > David Gibson wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 07:24:46PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:15:41 +1100 > > > David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > tcp_defer_handler(), amongst other things, scans the flow table and does > > > > some processing for each TCP connection. When we add other protocols to > > > > the flow table, they're likely to want some similar scanning. It makes > > > > more sense for cache friendliness to perform a single scan of the flow > > > > table and dispatch to the protocol specific handlers, rather than having > > > > each protocol separately scan the table. > > > > > > > > To that end, add a new flow_defer_handler() handling all flow-linked > > > > deferred operations. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson > > > > --- > > > > flow.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > flow.h | 1 + > > > > passt.c | 1 + > > > > tcp.c | 19 ++----------------- > > > > tcp_conn.h | 1 + > > > > 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/flow.c b/flow.c > > > > index a1c0a34..0a0402d 100644 > > > > --- a/flow.c > > > > +++ b/flow.c > > > > @@ -83,3 +83,26 @@ void flow_log_(const struct flow_common *f, int pri, const char *fmt, ...) > > > > > > > > logmsg(pri, "Flow %u (%s): %s", flow_idx(f), FLOW_TYPE(f), msg); > > > > } > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * flow_defer_handler() - Handler for per-flow deferred tasks > > > > + * @c: Execution context > > > > + */ > > > > +void flow_defer_handler(struct ctx *c) > > > > +{ > > > > + union flow *flow; > > > > + > > > > + for (flow = flowtab + c->flow_count - 1; flow >= flowtab; flow--) { > > > > + switch (flow->f.type) { > > > > + case FLOW_TCP: > > > > + tcp_flow_defer(c, flow); > > > > + break; > > > > + case FLOW_TCP_SPLICE: > > > > + tcp_splice_flow_defer(c, flow); > > > > + break; > > > > + default: > > > > + /* Assume other flow types don't need any handling */ > > > > + ; > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > +} > > > > diff --git a/flow.h b/flow.h > > > > index 959b461..6b17fa8 100644 > > > > --- a/flow.h > > > > +++ b/flow.h > > > > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ static inline bool flow_sidx_eq(flow_sidx_t a, flow_sidx_t b) > > > > union flow; > > > > > > > > void flow_table_compact(struct ctx *c, union flow *hole); > > > > +void flow_defer_handler(struct ctx *c); > > > > > > > > void flow_log_(const struct flow_common *f, int pri, const char *fmt, ...) > > > > __attribute__((format(printf, 3, 4))); > > > > diff --git a/passt.c b/passt.c > > > > index 0246b04..5f72a28 100644 > > > > --- a/passt.c > > > > +++ b/passt.c > > > > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static void post_handler(struct ctx *c, const struct timespec *now) > > > > /* NOLINTNEXTLINE(bugprone-branch-clone): intervals can be the same */ > > > > CALL_PROTO_HANDLER(c, now, icmp, ICMP); > > > > > > > > + flow_defer_handler(c); > > > > #undef CALL_PROTO_HANDLER > > > > } > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c > > > > index ad1a70d..9230d80 100644 > > > > --- a/tcp.c > > > > +++ b/tcp.c > > > > @@ -1306,7 +1306,7 @@ static struct tcp_tap_conn *tcp_hash_lookup(const struct ctx *c, > > > > * @c: Execution context > > > > * @flow: Flow table entry for this connection > > > > */ > > > > -static void tcp_flow_defer(struct ctx *c, union flow *flow) > > > > +void tcp_flow_defer(struct ctx *c, union flow *flow) > > > > { > > > > const struct tcp_tap_conn *conn = &flow->tcp; > > > > > > > > @@ -1364,26 +1364,11 @@ static void tcp_l2_data_buf_flush(const struct ctx *c) > > > > * tcp_defer_handler() - Handler for TCP deferred tasks > > > > * @c: Execution context > > > > */ > > > > +/* cppcheck-suppress constParameterPointer */ > > > > > > This needs to be: > > > > > > /* cppcheck-suppress [constParameterPointer, unmatchedSuppression] */ > > > > > > otherwise we get warnings with cppcheck 2.10, > > > > Drat, do we? I was hoping this was a new warning type with the newer > > cppcheck, and it would ignore the suppression if it was for a warning > > type it didn't know about. > > Yeah... go figure. On the other hand it's not really a new type in the > sense that this _should_ have been covered by a "constParameter" > warning, before 2.11. Dang. Oh well, updated. > > > and we'll get warnings if > > > cppcheck's behaviour ever changes again. > > > > That's actually a good thing. This one isn't a workaround for a > > cppcheck false positive or weird semantic that we hope will go away. > > Rhe warning is real and correct as far as it goes. The problem is > > that the signature needs to match that of other deferred handlers > > because of how we generate the calls from a macro. Some of those > > others need write access to the context. > > Oops, I didn't realise. Well, in any case, then we don't expect > cppcheck's behaviour to ever change in this regard, so I don't see any > advantage omitting unmatchedSuppression here. > -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson