diff options
author | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-05-06 01:02:30 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-05-06 01:02:30 +0000 |
commit | 76cb841cb886eef6b3bee341a2266c76578724ad (patch) | |
tree | f5892e5ba6cc11949952a6ce4ecbe6d516d6ce58 /Documentation/flexible-arrays.txt | |
parent | Initial commit. (diff) | |
download | linux-76cb841cb886eef6b3bee341a2266c76578724ad.tar.xz linux-76cb841cb886eef6b3bee341a2266c76578724ad.zip |
Adding upstream version 4.19.249.upstream/4.19.249upstream
Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/flexible-arrays.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/flexible-arrays.txt | 123 |
1 files changed, 123 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/flexible-arrays.txt b/Documentation/flexible-arrays.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a0f2989dd --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/flexible-arrays.txt @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +=================================== +Using flexible arrays in the kernel +=================================== + +:Updated: Last updated for 2.6.32 +:Author: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> + +Large contiguous memory allocations can be unreliable in the Linux kernel. +Kernel programmers will sometimes respond to this problem by allocating +pages with vmalloc(). This solution not ideal, though. On 32-bit systems, +memory from vmalloc() must be mapped into a relatively small address space; +it's easy to run out. On SMP systems, the page table changes required by +vmalloc() allocations can require expensive cross-processor interrupts on +all CPUs. And, on all systems, use of space in the vmalloc() range +increases pressure on the translation lookaside buffer (TLB), reducing the +performance of the system. + +In many cases, the need for memory from vmalloc() can be eliminated by +piecing together an array from smaller parts; the flexible array library +exists to make this task easier. + +A flexible array holds an arbitrary (within limits) number of fixed-sized +objects, accessed via an integer index. Sparse arrays are handled +reasonably well. Only single-page allocations are made, so memory +allocation failures should be relatively rare. The down sides are that the +arrays cannot be indexed directly, individual object size cannot exceed the +system page size, and putting data into a flexible array requires a copy +operation. It's also worth noting that flexible arrays do no internal +locking at all; if concurrent access to an array is possible, then the +caller must arrange for appropriate mutual exclusion. + +The creation of a flexible array is done with:: + + #include <linux/flex_array.h> + + struct flex_array *flex_array_alloc(int element_size, + unsigned int total, + gfp_t flags); + +The individual object size is provided by element_size, while total is the +maximum number of objects which can be stored in the array. The flags +argument is passed directly to the internal memory allocation calls. With +the current code, using flags to ask for high memory is likely to lead to +notably unpleasant side effects. + +It is also possible to define flexible arrays at compile time with:: + + DEFINE_FLEX_ARRAY(name, element_size, total); + +This macro will result in a definition of an array with the given name; the +element size and total will be checked for validity at compile time. + +Storing data into a flexible array is accomplished with a call to:: + + int flex_array_put(struct flex_array *array, unsigned int element_nr, + void *src, gfp_t flags); + +This call will copy the data from src into the array, in the position +indicated by element_nr (which must be less than the maximum specified when +the array was created). If any memory allocations must be performed, flags +will be used. The return value is zero on success, a negative error code +otherwise. + +There might possibly be a need to store data into a flexible array while +running in some sort of atomic context; in this situation, sleeping in the +memory allocator would be a bad thing. That can be avoided by using +GFP_ATOMIC for the flags value, but, often, there is a better way. The +trick is to ensure that any needed memory allocations are done before +entering atomic context, using:: + + int flex_array_prealloc(struct flex_array *array, unsigned int start, + unsigned int nr_elements, gfp_t flags); + +This function will ensure that memory for the elements indexed in the range +defined by start and nr_elements has been allocated. Thereafter, a +flex_array_put() call on an element in that range is guaranteed not to +block. + +Getting data back out of the array is done with:: + + void *flex_array_get(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr); + +The return value is a pointer to the data element, or NULL if that +particular element has never been allocated. + +Note that it is possible to get back a valid pointer for an element which +has never been stored in the array. Memory for array elements is allocated +one page at a time; a single allocation could provide memory for several +adjacent elements. Flexible array elements are normally initialized to the +value FLEX_ARRAY_FREE (defined as 0x6c in <linux/poison.h>), so errors +involving that number probably result from use of unstored array entries. +Note that, if array elements are allocated with __GFP_ZERO, they will be +initialized to zero and this poisoning will not happen. + +Individual elements in the array can be cleared with:: + + int flex_array_clear(struct flex_array *array, unsigned int element_nr); + +This function will set the given element to FLEX_ARRAY_FREE and return +zero. If storage for the indicated element is not allocated for the array, +flex_array_clear() will return -EINVAL instead. Note that clearing an +element does not release the storage associated with it; to reduce the +allocated size of an array, call:: + + int flex_array_shrink(struct flex_array *array); + +The return value will be the number of pages of memory actually freed. +This function works by scanning the array for pages containing nothing but +FLEX_ARRAY_FREE bytes, so (1) it can be expensive, and (2) it will not work +if the array's pages are allocated with __GFP_ZERO. + +It is possible to remove all elements of an array with a call to:: + + void flex_array_free_parts(struct flex_array *array); + +This call frees all elements, but leaves the array itself in place. +Freeing the entire array is done with:: + + void flex_array_free(struct flex_array *array); + +As of this writing, there are no users of flexible arrays in the mainline +kernel. The functions described here are also not exported to modules; +that will probably be fixed when somebody comes up with a need for it. |