[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190925133826.GA1496885@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:38:26 +0200
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
Cc: bvanassche@....org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, dsterba@...e.com,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] async: Let kfree() out of the critical area of the lock
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 08:52:26PM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
> It's not necessary to put kfree() in the critical area of the lock, so
> let it out.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
> ---
> kernel/async.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/async.c b/kernel/async.c
> index 4f9c1d6..1de270d 100644
> --- a/kernel/async.c
> +++ b/kernel/async.c
> @@ -135,12 +135,12 @@ static void async_run_entry_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> list_del_init(&entry->domain_list);
> list_del_init(&entry->global_list);
>
> - /* 3) free the entry */
> - kfree(entry);
> atomic_dec(&entry_count);
> -
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
>
> + /* 3) free the entry */
> + kfree(entry);
> +
> /* 4) wake up any waiters */
> wake_up(&async_done);
> }
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Does this result any any measurable performance changes?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists