All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate_chunk()
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:35:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B14B936.8080205@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B14ADE0.3020007@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 12/01/2009 02:40 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> So, I don't know.  The first iteration only loop looks a bit unusual
>>> for sure but it isn't something conceptually convoluted.
>> Now this seems to be better. So with this change, we can do:
>>
>> pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, rs, re, start, end);
>> if (rs < re && ...)
>>    return;
>>
>> Right?
> 
> Yeap, but is that any better?  Passing lvalue loop parameters to loop
> constructs is customary.  For almost all other cases, it's not, so
> 
>  pcpu_first_pop_region(chunk, &rs, &re, start, end)
> 
> would be better but then we have two similar looking interfaces which
> take different types of parameters.  Also, you probably can drop rs <
> re test there but for me it just seems easier to simply check the
> first iteration.  If you think it's something worth changing and it
> looks better afterwards, please send a patch.
> 

What do you think about the patch below? Untested.

-----------

Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@redhat.com>


[-- Attachment #2: mm-percpu_c-remove-two-useless-break.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1326 bytes --]

diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index 5adfc26..d1da616 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -911,14 +911,12 @@ static void pcpu_depopulate_chunk(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, int off, int size)
 	int page_end = PFN_UP(off + size);
 	struct page **pages;
 	unsigned long *populated;
-	int rs, re;
+	int rs = page_start, re;
 
 	/* quick path, check whether it's empty already */
-	pcpu_for_each_unpop_region(chunk, rs, re, page_start, page_end) {
-		if (rs == page_start && re == page_end)
-			return;
-		break;
-	}
+	pcpu_next_unpop(chunk, &rs, &re, page_end);
+	if (rs == page_start && re == page_end)
+		return;
 
 	/* immutable chunks can't be depopulated */
 	WARN_ON(chunk->immutable);
@@ -966,14 +964,12 @@ static int pcpu_populate_chunk(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, int off, int size)
 	struct page **pages;
 	unsigned long *populated;
 	unsigned int cpu;
-	int rs, re, rc;
+	int rs = page_start, re, rc;
 
 	/* quick path, check whether all pages are already there */
-	pcpu_for_each_pop_region(chunk, rs, re, page_start, page_end) {
-		if (rs == page_start && re == page_end)
-			goto clear;
-		break;
-	}
+	pcpu_next_pop(chunk, &rs, &re, page_end);
+	if (rs == page_start && re == page_end)
+		goto clear;
 
 	/* need to allocate and map pages, this chunk can't be immutable */
 	WARN_ON(chunk->immutable);

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-01  6:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-30  9:12 [Patch] percpu: remove two suspicious break statements Amerigo Wang
2009-11-30 11:09 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-30 19:01   ` Christoph Lameter
2009-12-01  0:01     ` [PATCH] percpu: explain quick paths in pcpu_[de]populate_chunk() Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  2:02       ` Cong Wang
2009-12-01  5:00         ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  5:09           ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  5:40             ` Cong Wang
2009-12-01  5:47               ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  6:35                 ` Cong Wang [this message]
2009-12-01  6:59                   ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-01  7:13                     ` [PATCH] percpu: refactor the code " Cong Wang
2009-12-01 14:31                       ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4B14B936.8080205@redhat.com \
    --to=amwang@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.