Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 9 May 2021 16:59:54 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] kvfree_rcu: Refactor kfree_rcu_monitor() function |
| |
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 15:44:21 +0200 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rearm the monitor work directly from its own function that > is kfree_rcu_monitor(). So this patch puts the invocation > timing control in one place. > > ... > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -3415,37 +3415,44 @@ static inline bool queue_kfree_rcu_work(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp) > return !repeat; > } > > -static inline void kfree_rcu_drain_unlock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp, > - unsigned long flags) > +/* > + * This function queues a new batch. If success or nothing to > + * drain it returns 1. Otherwise 0 is returned indicating that > + * a reclaim kthread has not processed a previous batch. > + */ > +static inline int kfree_rcu_drain(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp) > { > + unsigned long flags; > + int ret; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags); > + > // Attempt to start a new batch. > - if (queue_kfree_rcu_work(krcp)) { > + ret = queue_kfree_rcu_work(krcp);
This code has changed slightly in mainline. Can you please redo, retest and resend?
> + if (ret) > // Success! Our job is done here. > krcp->monitor_todo = false; > - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&krcp->lock, flags); > - return; > - }
It's conventional to retain the braces here, otherwise the code looks weird. Unless you're a python programmer ;)
|  |