lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c
From
Date


On 12/21/2017 04:36 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:19:47AM -0800, rao.shoaib@oracle.com wrote:
>> This patch moves kfree_call_rcu() and related macros out of rcu code. A new
>> function __call_rcu_lazy() is created for calling __call_rcu() with the lazy
>> flag.
> Something you probably didn't know ... there are two RCU implementations
> in the kernel; Tree and Tiny. It looks like you've only added
> __call_rcu_lazy() to Tree and you'll also need to add it to Tiny.
I left it out on purpose because the call in tiny is a little different

rcutiny.h:

static inline void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
                  void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
{
    call_rcu(head, func);
}

tree.c:

void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
            void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
{
    __call_rcu(head, func, rcu_state_p, -1, 1);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfree_call_rcu);

If we want the code to be exactly same I can create a lazy version for
tiny as well. However,  I don not know where to move kfree_call_rcu()
from it's current home in rcutiny.h though. Any thoughts ?
>
>> Also moving macros generated following checkpatch noise. I do not know
>> how to silence checkpatch as there is nothing wrong.
>>
>> CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'offset' - possible side-effects?
>> #91: FILE: include/linux/slab.h:348:
>> +#define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \
>> + do { \
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(offset)); \
>> + kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(offset)); \
>> + } while (0)
> What checkpatch is warning you about here is that somebody might call
>
> __kfree_rcu(p, a++);
>
> and this would expand into
>
> do { \
> BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(a++)); \
> kfree_call_rcu(p, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(a++)); \
> } while (0)
>
> which would increment 'a' twice, and cause pain and suffering.
>
> That's pretty unlikely usage of __kfree_rcu(), but I suppose it's not
> impossible. We have various hacks to get around this kind of thing;
> for example I might do this as::
>
> #define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \
> do { \
> unsigned long __o = offset;
> BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(__o)); \
> kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(__o)); \
> } while (0)
>
> Now offset is only evaluated once per invocation of the macro. The other
> two warnings are the same problem.
>
Thanks. I was not sure if I was required to fix the noise or based on
inspection the noise could be ignored. I will make the change and resubmit.

Shoaib

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-21 18:33    [W:0.088 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site