lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/rcuscale: Stop kfree_scale_thread thread(s) after unloading rcuscale
Date
> From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:29 PM
> To: Zhuo, Qiuxu <qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com>
> Cc: paulmck@kernel.org; Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>; Josh
> Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>; Neeraj Upadhyay
> <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>; Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>; Steven
> Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>; Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>; Lai Jiangshan
> <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>; rcu@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/rcuscale: Stop kfree_scale_thread thread(s)
> after unloading rcuscale
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 2023, at 9:17 AM, Zhuo, Qiuxu <qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> How about to pull the rcu_scale_cleanup() function after
> >> kfree_scale_cleanup().
> >>>> This groups kfree_* functions and groups rcu_scale_* functions.
> >>>> Then the code would look cleaner.
> >>>> So, do you think the changes below are better?
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, I don't think doing such a code move is better. Just add a new
> >>> header file and declare the function there. But see what Paul says
> >>> first.
> >>
> >> This situation is likely to be an early hint that the kvfree_rcu()
> >> testing should be split out from kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c.
> >
> > Another is that it's a bit expensive to create a new header file just
> > for eliminating a function declaration. ;-)
>
> What is so expensive about new files? It is a natural organization structure.
>
> > So, if no objections, I'd like to send out the v2 patch with the updates below:
> >
> > - Move rcu_scale_cleanup() after kfree_scale_cleanup() to eliminate the
> > declaration of kfree_scale_cleanup(). Though this makes the patch bigger,
> > get the file rcuscale.c much cleaner.
> >
> > - Remove the unnecessary step "modprobe torture" from the commit
> message.
> >
> > - Add the description for why move rcu_scale_cleanup() after
> > kfree_scale_cleanup() to the commit message.
>
> Honestly if you are moving so many lines around, you may as well split it out
> into a new module.
> The kfree stuff being clubbed in the same file has also been a major
> annoyance.

I'm OK with creating a new kernel module for these kfree stuffs,
but do we really need to do that?

@paulmck, what's your suggestion for the next step?

> - Joel
>
>
> > Thanks!
> > -Qiuxu
> >
> >> [...]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 01:04    [W:0.109 / U:1.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site