From: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>
To: ast@kernel.org
Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com, daniel@iogearbox.net,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
jolsa@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] bpf: Simplify code by using for_each_cpu_wrap()
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 14:08:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220817130807.68279-1-punit.agrawal@bytedance.com> (raw)
In the percpu freelist code, it is a common pattern to iterate over
the possible CPUs mask starting with the current CPU. The pattern is
implemented using a hand rolled while loop with the loop variable
increment being open-coded.
Simplify the code by replacing the while() loops with
for_each_cpu_wrap() helper to iterate over the possible cpus starting
with the current CPU. As a result, some of the special-casing in the
loop also gets simplified.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>
---
Hi,
I noticed an opportunity for simplifying the code while reviewing a
backport for one of the commits in this area.
Please consider merging.
Thanks,
Punit
kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c | 42 ++++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c b/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
index 00b874c8e889..9dd9201c6f07 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
@@ -56,10 +56,9 @@ static inline bool pcpu_freelist_try_push_extra(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
static inline void ___pcpu_freelist_push_nmi(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node)
{
- int cpu, orig_cpu;
+ int cpu;
- orig_cpu = cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
- while (1) {
+ for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpu_possible_mask, raw_smp_processor_id()) {
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
@@ -68,15 +67,10 @@ static inline void ___pcpu_freelist_push_nmi(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
return;
}
- cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_possible_mask);
- if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
- cpu = 0;
-
- /* cannot lock any per cpu lock, try extralist */
- if (cpu == orig_cpu &&
- pcpu_freelist_try_push_extra(s, node))
- return;
}
+
+ /* cannot lock any per cpu lock, try extralist */
+ pcpu_freelist_try_push_extra(s, node);
}
void __pcpu_freelist_push(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
@@ -125,13 +119,12 @@ static struct pcpu_freelist_node *___pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node;
- int orig_cpu, cpu;
+ int cpu;
- orig_cpu = cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
- while (1) {
+ for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpu_possible_mask, raw_smp_processor_id()) {
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
if (!READ_ONCE(head->first))
- goto next_cpu;
+ continue;
raw_spin_lock(&head->lock);
node = head->first;
if (node) {
@@ -140,12 +133,6 @@ static struct pcpu_freelist_node *___pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
return node;
}
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
-next_cpu:
- cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_possible_mask);
- if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
- cpu = 0;
- if (cpu == orig_cpu)
- break;
}
/* per cpu lists are all empty, try extralist */
@@ -164,13 +151,12 @@ ___pcpu_freelist_pop_nmi(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node;
- int orig_cpu, cpu;
+ int cpu;
- orig_cpu = cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
- while (1) {
+ for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpu_possible_mask, raw_smp_processor_id()) {
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
if (!READ_ONCE(head->first))
- goto next_cpu;
+ continue;
if (raw_spin_trylock(&head->lock)) {
node = head->first;
if (node) {
@@ -180,12 +166,6 @@ ___pcpu_freelist_pop_nmi(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
}
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
}
-next_cpu:
- cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_possible_mask);
- if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
- cpu = 0;
- if (cpu == orig_cpu)
- break;
}
/* cannot pop from per cpu lists, try extralist */
--
2.35.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-08-17 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-17 13:08 Punit Agrawal [this message]
2022-08-17 16:41 ` [PATCH] bpf: Simplify code by using for_each_cpu_wrap() Alexei Starovoitov
2022-08-17 16:57 ` Punit Agrawal
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=20220817130807.68279-1-punit.agrawal@bytedance.com \
--to=punit.agrawal@bytedance.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox