lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [17]   [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 Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 06:12:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:53:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:29:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I just meant that those constants get #defined based on CONFIG_NO_HZ, so
> > an #ifdef on that would remove the need for the special handling of dead
> > code.
>
> True, I could put a #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ around that leg of the switch
> statement. Or am I still missing your point?

No, you got it exactly. Hence my suggesting that all the other
alternatives (the if with a break, or with __builtin_unreachable) seemed
excessive just to try to convince the compiler to infer what an ifdef
would tell it explicitly. :)

- Josh Triplett


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-18 05:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans