linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: rao.shoaib@oracle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	brouer@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:23:41 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180102222341.GB20405@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1514923898-2495-1-git-send-email-rao.shoaib@oracle.com>

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:11:37PM -0800, rao.shoaib@oracle.com wrote:
> -#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head)					\
> -	__kfree_rcu(&((ptr)->rcu_head), offsetof(typeof(*(ptr)), rcu_head))

> +#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head_name)	\
> +	do { \
> +		typeof(ptr) __ptr = ptr;	\
> +		unsigned long __off = offsetof(typeof(*(__ptr)), \
> +						      rcu_head_name); \
> +		struct rcu_head *__rptr = (void *)__ptr + __off; \
> +		__kfree_rcu(__rptr, __off); \
> +	} while (0)

I feel like you're trying to help people understand the code better,
but using longer names can really work against that.  Reverting to
calling the parameter 'rcu_head' lets you not split the line:

+#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head)	\
+	do { \
+		typeof(ptr) __ptr = ptr;	\
+		unsigned long __off = offsetof(typeof(*(__ptr)), rcu_head); \
+		struct rcu_head *__rptr = (void *)__ptr + __off; \
+		__kfree_rcu(__rptr, __off); \
+	} while (0)

Also, I don't understand why you're bothering to create __ptr here.
I understand the desire to not mention the same argument more than once,
but you have 'ptr' twice anyway.

And it's good practice to enclose macro arguments in parentheses in case
the user has done something really tricksy like pass in "p + 1".

In summary, I don't see anything fundamentally better in your rewrite
of kfree_rcu().  The previous version is more succinct, and to my
mind, easier to understand.

> +void call_rcu_lazy(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> +{
> +	__call_rcu(head, func, &rcu_sched_state, -1, 1);
> +}

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

You've silently changed this.  Why?  It might well be the right change,
but it at least merits mentioning in the changelog.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-01-02 22:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-02 20:11 rao.shoaib
2018-01-02 20:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] kfree_rcu() should use the new kfree_bulk() interface for freeing rcu structures rao.shoaib
2018-01-02 22:23 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2018-01-02 22:49   ` [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c Rao Shoaib
2018-01-04  1:38     ` Boqun Feng
2018-01-04 20:35       ` Rao Shoaib
2018-01-04 21:27         ` Rao Shoaib
2018-01-04 21:46           ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-01-04 22:18             ` Rao Shoaib
2018-01-04 23:13               ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-01-04 23:47                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-05  0:07                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-01-05  2:14                     ` Rao Shoaib
2018-01-05  6:46                     ` Joe Perches
2018-03-27  1:56                       ` Rao Shoaib
2018-03-27  2:06                         ` Joe Perches
2018-04-02  5:31 [PATCH 0/2] Move kfree_rcu out of rcu code and use kfree_bulk rao.shoaib
2018-04-02  5:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c rao.shoaib
2018-04-02  7:59   ` kbuild test robot
2018-04-02  9:45   ` kbuild test robot
2018-04-02 15:43     ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-03 17:22 [PATCH 0/2] Move kfree_rcu out of rcu code and use kfree_bulk rao.shoaib
2018-04-03 17:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c rao.shoaib

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180102222341.GB20405@bombadil.infradead.org \
    --to=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rao.shoaib@oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox