From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB90620EA for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C220C433EF; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:54:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1685991273; bh=mdiqgPX74+jDozdh4MToyKbW1D4NW8k7WAOrKXhZeeI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HMwGJE/BttY4rKr9UQgT+B5z1lRGtrRPpWoN5X4fe5muUmBmpsNJpMDoMqI96p8iE +ggdBImcVC6D3MUSI5YcC/5lp97hCYI4gMmXa9jvnmjb/rcKHliitcwD0ryCWCKxUb s/arEJVHkwvZbh3Qpo73/qqKc5HWKDZDUy+QR5JlQ1wYiGt/Fq98nAWfNNCLs2ILpr ye3irNY+m3XwgNT4t9qKtRcFrPjTeKF2TEpf6wfof3T75vo975LvqUA3KxkwWG8uCJ kE3WFPA7J2I6sQMJDe4+fkk8fXmPVCSkeokbbg1G3TX09I2uV2ahnemjxk0JAacT15 N0xrcupZIS58w== Received: by quaco.ghostprotocols.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9C90140692; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 15:54:30 -0300 (-03) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 15:54:30 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Eduard Zingerman Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , dwarves@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com, mykolal@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH dwarves] pahole: avoid adding same struct structure to two rb trees Message-ID: References: <20230525235949.2978377-1-eddyz87@gmail.com> <2b4372428cd1e56de3b79791160cdd3afdc7df6a.camel@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2b4372428cd1e56de3b79791160cdd3afdc7df6a.camel@gmail.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com Em Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:39:19PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu: > On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 10:47 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 09:08:51PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu: > > > On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 15:04 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Em Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 04:52:40PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu: > > > > > Right, you are correct. > > > > > The 'structures__tree = RB_ROOT' part is still necessary, though. > > > > > If you are ok with overall structure of the patch I can resend it w/o bzero(). > > > > > > Humm, so basically this boils down to the following patch? > > > > > > +++ b/pahole.c > > > > @@ -674,7 +674,12 @@ static void print_ordered_classes(void) > > > > __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree); > > > > } else { > > > > struct rb_root resorted = RB_ROOT; > > > > - > > > > +#ifdef DEBUG_CHECK_LEAKS > > > > + // We'll delete structures from structures__tree, since we're > > > > + // adding them to ther resorted list, better not keep > > > > + // references there. > > > > + structures__tree = RB_ROOT; > > > > +#endif > > > > > But __structures__delete iterates over structures__tree, > > > so it won't delete anything if code like this, right? > > > > > > resort_classes(&resorted, &structures__list); > > > > __print_ordered_classes(&resorted); > > > > } > > > > Yeah, I tried to be minimalistic, my version avoids the crash, but > > defeats the DEBUG_CHECK_LEAKS purpose :-\ > > > > How about: > > > > diff --git a/pahole.c b/pahole.c > > index 6fc4ed6a721b97ab..e843999fde2a8a37 100644 > > --- a/pahole.c > > +++ b/pahole.c > > @@ -673,10 +673,10 @@ static void print_ordered_classes(void) > > if (!need_resort) { > > __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree); > > } else { > > - struct rb_root resorted = RB_ROOT; > > + structures__tree = RB_ROOT; > > > > - resort_classes(&resorted, &structures__list); > > - __print_ordered_classes(&resorted); > > + resort_classes(&structures__tree, &structures__list); > > + __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree); > > } > > } > > > > That would work, but I still think that there is no need to replicate call > to __print_ordered_classes, as long as the same list is passed as an argument, > e.g.: > > @@ -670,14 +671,11 @@ static void resort_classes(struct rb_root *resorted, struct list_head *head) > > static void print_ordered_classes(void) > { > - if (!need_resort) { > - __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree); > - } else { > - struct rb_root resorted = RB_ROOT; > - > - resort_classes(&resorted, &structures__list); > - __print_ordered_classes(&resorted); > + if (need_resort) { > + structures__tree = RB_ROOT; > + resort_classes(&structures__tree, &structures__list); > } > + __print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree); > } Right, that can be done as a follow up patch, further simplifying the code. I'm just trying to have each patch as small as possible. - Arnaldo