[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZxubhuEwL5GrhBdu@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:22:14 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] resource: Avoid unnecessary resource tree walking in
__region_intersects()
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 02:57:38PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:30:39PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 02:07:52PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > >> Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:06:37AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > >> > > David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> writes:
> > > >> > > > On 10.10.24 08:55, Huang Ying wrote:
...
> > > >> > > > for ((_p) = (_root)->child; (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(_root, _p))
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Yes. This can improve code readability.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > A possible issue is that "_root" will be evaluated twice in above macro
> > > >> > > definition. IMO, this should be avoided.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ideally, yes. But how many for_each type of macros you see that really try hard
> > > >> > to achieve that? I believe we shouldn't worry right now about this and rely on
> > > >> > the fact that root is the given variable. Or do you have an example of what you
> > > >> > suggested in the other reply, i.e. where it's an evaluation of the heavy call?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Do you have some idea about
> > > >> > > how to do that? Something like below?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \
> > > >> > > for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), __p = (_p) = (__root)->child; \
> > > >> > > __p && (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p))
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is a bit ugly :-( I would avoid ugliness as long as we have no problem to
> > > >> > solve (see above).
> > > >>
> > > >> Using a local defined variable to avoid double evaluation is standard
> > > >> practice. I do not understand "avoid ugliness as long as we have no problem to
> > > >> solve", the problem to solve will be if someone accidentally does
> > > >> something like "for_each_resource_descendant(root++, res)". *That* will
> > > >> be a problem when someone finally realizes that the macro is hiding a
> > > >> double evaluation.
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain, why do we need __p and how can we get rid of that?
> > > > I understand the part of the local variable for root.
> > >
> > > If don't use '__p', the macro becomes
> > >
> > > #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \
> > > for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), (_p) = (__root)->child; \
> > > (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p))
> > >
> > > Where, '_p' must be a variable name, and it will be a new variable
> > > inside for loop and mask the variable with same name outside of macro.
> > > IIUC, this breaks the macro convention in kernel and has subtle variable
> > > masking semantics.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Oh, due to the comment expression, good catch.
>
> > In property.h nobody cares about evaluation which makes the macro as simple as
> >
> > #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \
> > for (_p = next_resource_XXX(__root, NULL); _p; \
> > _p = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p))
> >
> > (Dan,
> > that's what I called to avoid solving issues we don't have and most likely
> > will never have.)
>
> Ah, my apologies, I thought the objection was to the macro altogether.
No, no, I'm supporting the idea!
> > but if you want to stick with your variant some improvements can be done:
> >
> > #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \
> > for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), __p = _p = __root->child; \
> > __p && _p; _p = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p))
> >
> >
> > 1) no need to have local variable in parentheses;
> > 2) no need to have iterator in parentheses, otherwise it would be crazy code
> > that has put something really wrong there and still expect the thing to work.
>
> Why not:
>
> #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \
> for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), __p = _p = __root->child; \
> _p; _p = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p))
>
> The __p is only to allow for _p to be initialized in the first statement
> without causing a new "_p" shadow to be declared.
If people think this would be better than the existing patterns, okay. fine.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists