[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZGzcjDG2t1/zIUKR@pc636>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 17:32:28 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] mm: vmalloc: Add a per-CPU-zone infrastructure
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:13:47AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 04:53:25PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > +#define fbl_lock(z, i) spin_lock(&fbl(z, i, lock))
> > > > +#define fbl_unlock(z, i) spin_unlock(&fbl(z, i, lock))
> > >
> > > Even if it is just temporary, I don't think adding these wrappers
> > > make much sense.
> > >
> > If open-coded, it looks like:
> >
> > spin_lock(&z->fbl[BUSY].lock);
>
> Give the fbl structure a name and you can have a local variable for it,
> which will make all this a lot more readable. And then unless there is
> a really good reason to iterate over this as an array just have three
> of these structs embedded named free, busy and lazy.
>
OK. I can go that way.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists