[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161215151015.GG21758@leverpostej>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:10:15 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E . McKenney " <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/5] rcu: Introduce for_each_leaf_node_cpu()
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:38:58PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:43:52AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:42:00AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > +#define MASK_BITS(mask) (BITS_PER_BYTE * sizeof(mask))
> > > +/*
> > > + * Iterate over all CPUs a leaf RCU node which are still masked in
> > > + * @mask.
> > > + *
> > > + * Note @rnp has to be a leaf node and @mask has to belong to @rnp.
> >
> > Not a big deal, but perhaps it's worth enforcing this? If we took just
> > the name of the mask here, (e.g. qsmask rather than rnp->qsmask), we
> > could have the macro always use (rnp)->(mask). That would also make the
> > invocations shorter.
>
> I thought about this approach, but there may be some cases it seems
> inappropriate, see patch #5, passing "qsmaskinitnext" directly to the
> for_each_leaf_node_cpu() might be OK, but it just break another
> abstraction layer which rcu_rnp_online_cpus() provides.
I had missed that. Given that, not enforcingi t makes sense to me.
> > > And we
> > > + * assume that no CPU is masked in @mask but not set in cpu_possible_mask. IOW,
> > > + * masks of a leaf node never set a bit for an "impossible" CPU.
> > > + */
> > > +#define for_each_leaf_node_cpu(rnp, mask, cpu) \
> > > + for ((cpu) = (rnp)->grplo + find_first_bit(&(mask), MASK_BITS(mask)); \
> > > + (cpu) <= (rnp)->grphi && !WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_possible(cpu)); \
> >
> > If this happens, we'll exit the loop. If there are any reamining
> > possible CPUs, we'll skip them, which would be less than ideal.
> >
> > I guess this shouldn't happen anyway, but it might be worth continuing.
> >
>
> I chose to break if we met impossible only because I wanted to avoid
> using that "if(...) else" trick in an iteration macro ;-)
Understandable. ;)
> I don't know whether this is the first time something like this is
> brought into kernel, so I'm kinda hesitating to bring this in. But seems
> I got you as one supporter ;-)
>
> Certainly, skip is better than stop.
>From a quick look around, I found at least a few instances of the pattern. e.g.
include/linux/cpufreq.h:
#define cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry(pos, table) \
for (pos = table; pos->frequency != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END; pos++) \
if (pos->frequency == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID) \
continue; \
else
tools/perf/util/build-id.c:
#define dsos__for_each_with_build_id(pos, head) \
list_for_each_entry(pos, head, node) \
if (!pos->has_build_id) \
continue; \
else
Some drivers, like drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x.h really love it!
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists