lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/16] rcu: make dead code really dead
    On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 02:16:10PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
    > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 07:23:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:52:52PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > > > From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
    > > > >
    > > > > cleanup: make dead code really dead
    > > > >
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    > > > > ---
    > > > > kernel/rcutree.c | 4 ++--
    > > > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
    > > > >
    > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
    > > > > index e54c123..6042fb8 100644
    > > > > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
    > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
    > > > > @@ -1236,11 +1236,11 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
    > > > > break; /* grace period idle or initializing, ignore. */
    > > > >
    > > > > case RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK:
    > > > > -
    > > > > - raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock); /* irqs remain disabled */
    > > > > if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT != RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK)
    > > > > break; /* So gcc recognizes the dead code. */
    > > >
    > > > GCC's new __builtin_unreachable would help here, though obviously we
    > > > can't count on 4.5 or newer quite yet. A wrapper in compiler.h would
    > > > let us use it when available though.
    > >
    > > So at some time when we can count on gcc 4.5 or newer, the code
    > > would look something like the following?
    > >
    > > if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT == RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK)
    > > this_is_unreachable();
    >
    > Yes, exactly.
    >
    > > I suppose that in the meantime one could supply the code to use
    > > in the unreachable case:
    > >
    > > if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT == RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK)
    > > this_is_unreachable(break);
    > >
    > > But this is beginning to seem a bit strained to me. ;-)
    >
    > I'd suggest spelling that this way:
    >
    > if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT == RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK) {
    > unreachable();
    > break;
    > }
    >
    > But in any case, all of these do seem excessive just to avoid the need
    > for an ifdef. :)

    Actually, the "if" condition is a comparison of numerical constants,
    so no #ifdef is required.

    Thanx, Paul


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-17 00:31    [W:0.029 / U:268.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site