Re: [PATCH v2 09/16] rcu/tree: Maintain separate array for vmalloc ptrs

[Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>]

> > +	// Handle two first channels.
> > +	for (i = 0; i < FREE_N_CHANNELS; i++) {
> > +		for (; bkvhead[i]; bkvhead[i] = bnext) {
> > +			bnext = bkvhead[i]->next;
> > +			debug_rcu_bhead_unqueue(bkvhead[i]);
> > +
> > +			rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_callback_map);
> > +			if (i == 0) { // kmalloc() / kfree().
> > +				trace_rcu_invoke_kfree_bulk_callback(
> > +					rcu_state.name, bkvhead[i]->nr_records,
> > +					bkvhead[i]->records);
> > +
> > +				kfree_bulk(bkvhead[i]->nr_records,
> > +					bkvhead[i]->records);
> > +			} else { // vmalloc() / vfree().
> > +				for (j = 0; j < bkvhead[i]->nr_records; j++) {
> > +					trace_rcu_invoke_kfree_callback(
> > +						rcu_state.name,
> > +						bkvhead[i]->records[j], 0);
> > +
> > +					vfree(bkvhead[i]->records[j]);
> > +				}
> > +			}
> > +			rcu_lock_release(&rcu_callback_map);
> 
> Not an emergency, but did you look into replacing this "if" statement
> with an array of pointers to functions implementing the legs of the
> "if" statement?  If nothing else, this would greatly reduced indentation.
> 
>
> I am taking this as is, but if you have not already done so, could you
> please look into this for a follow-up patch?
> 
I do not think it makes sense, because it would require to check each
pointer in the array, what can lead to many branching, i.e. "if-else"
instructions.

Paul, thank you to take it in!

--
Vlad Rezki