| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:42:42 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/15] rcu: Use for_each_rcu_flavor() in
TREE_RCU tracing
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:22:14PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:56:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:59:57PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > @@ -129,24 +125,16 @@ static void print_one_rcu_data(struct seq_file *m, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > > rdp->n_cbs_invoked, rdp->n_cbs_orphaned, rdp->n_cbs_adopted);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -#define PRINT_RCU_DATA(name, func, m) \
> > > > - do { \
> > > > - int _p_r_d_i; \
> > > > - \
> > > > - for_each_possible_cpu(_p_r_d_i) \
> > > > - func(m, &per_cpu(name, _p_r_d_i)); \
> > > > - } while (0)
> > > > -
> > > > static int show_rcudata(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> > > > {
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "rcu_preempt:\n");
> > > > - PRINT_RCU_DATA(rcu_preempt_data, print_one_rcu_data, m);
> > > > -#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "rcu_sched:\n");
> > > > - PRINT_RCU_DATA(rcu_sched_data, print_one_rcu_data, m);
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "rcu_bh:\n");
> > > > - PRINT_RCU_DATA(rcu_bh_data, print_one_rcu_data, m);
> > > > + int cpu;
> > > > + struct rcu_state *rsp;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp) {
> > > > + seq_printf(m, "%s:\n", rsp->name);
> > > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > > > + print_one_rcu_data(m, per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu));
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > As above, I'd suggest inlining print_one_rcu_data.
> >
> > Not this one, too bulky.
>
> I looked at the implementation; it just consists of a pile of calls to
> seq_printf. What about that makes it too bulky to include in the body
> of the loop?
Your referring to it as "a pile of calls" is strong evidence. ;-)
> > > > @@ -200,6 +188,9 @@ static void print_one_rcu_data_csv(struct seq_file *m, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > >
> > > > static int show_rcudata_csv(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> > > > {
> > > > + int cpu;
> > > > + struct rcu_state *rsp;
> > > > +
> > > > seq_puts(m, "\"CPU\",\"Online?\",\"c\",\"g\",\"pq\",\"pgp\",\"pq\",");
> > > > seq_puts(m, "\"dt\",\"dt nesting\",\"dt NMI nesting\",\"df\",");
> > > > seq_puts(m, "\"of\",\"qll\",\"ql\",\"qs\"");
> > > > @@ -207,14 +198,11 @@ static int show_rcudata_csv(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> > > > seq_puts(m, "\"kt\",\"ktl\"");
> > > > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
> > > > seq_puts(m, ",\"b\",\"ci\",\"co\",\"ca\"\n");
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "\"rcu_preempt:\"\n");
> > > > - PRINT_RCU_DATA(rcu_preempt_data, print_one_rcu_data_csv, m);
> > > > -#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "\"rcu_sched:\"\n");
> > > > - PRINT_RCU_DATA(rcu_sched_data, print_one_rcu_data_csv, m);
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "\"rcu_bh:\"\n");
> > > > - PRINT_RCU_DATA(rcu_bh_data, print_one_rcu_data_csv, m);
> > > > + for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp) {
> > > > + seq_printf(m, "\"%s:\"\n", rsp->name);
> > > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > > > + print_one_rcu_data_csv(m, per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu));
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > As above, I'd suggest inlining print_one_rcu_data_csv.
> >
> > Also too bulky.
>
> Also just a few calls to seq_printf. :)
For some definition or another of a few lines of code. ;-)
> > > > @@ -304,9 +292,9 @@ static void print_one_rcu_state(struct seq_file *m, struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > > >
> > > > gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> > > > - seq_printf(m, "c=%lu g=%lu s=%d jfq=%ld j=%x "
> > > > + seq_printf(m, "%s: c=%lu g=%lu s=%d jfq=%ld j=%x "
> > > > "nfqs=%lu/nfqsng=%lu(%lu) fqlh=%lu oqlen=%ld/%ld\n",
> > > > - rsp->completed, gpnum, rsp->fqs_state,
> > > > + rsp->name, rsp->completed, gpnum, rsp->fqs_state,
> > > > (long)(rsp->jiffies_force_qs - jiffies),
> > > > (int)(jiffies & 0xffff),
> > > > rsp->n_force_qs, rsp->n_force_qs_ngp,
> > > > @@ -329,14 +317,10 @@ static void print_one_rcu_state(struct seq_file *m, struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > >
> > > > static int show_rcuhier(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> > > > {
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "rcu_preempt:\n");
> > > > - print_one_rcu_state(m, &rcu_preempt_state);
> > > > -#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "rcu_sched:\n");
> > > > - print_one_rcu_state(m, &rcu_sched_state);
> > > > - seq_puts(m, "rcu_bh:\n");
> > > > - print_one_rcu_state(m, &rcu_bh_state);
> > > > + struct rcu_state *rsp;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp)
> > > > + print_one_rcu_state(m, rsp);
> > >
> > > As above, I'd suggest inlining print_one_rcu_state.
> >
> > Also too bulky.
>
> This one I'll grant, since it would introduce an additional level of
> nested loop.
>
> > > > @@ -377,11 +361,10 @@ static void show_one_rcugp(struct seq_file *m, struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > >
> > > > static int show_rcugp(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
> > > > {
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > - show_one_rcugp(m, &rcu_preempt_state);
> > > > -#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
> > > > - show_one_rcugp(m, &rcu_sched_state);
> > > > - show_one_rcugp(m, &rcu_bh_state);
> > > > + struct rcu_state *rsp;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp)
> > > > + show_one_rcugp(m, rsp);
> > >
> > > As above, I'd suggest inlining show_one_rcugp.
> >
> > Also too bulky.
>
> show_one_rcugp seems like an extremely simple function; what makes it
> unsuitable for the body of this loop?
Ummm... Nothing. I actually did inline this one. I was clearly
confused when documenting my actions!
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists