Re: [PATCH 03/11] rcu: clean up rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore()

Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31T13:52:36Z

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:07:58AM +0000, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Remove several unneeded return.
>
> It doesn't need to return earlier after every code block.
> The code protects itself and be safe to fall through because
> every code block has its own condition tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 14 +-------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index 59ef10da1e39..82595db04eec 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -439,19 +439,10 @@ rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long flags)
> * t->rcu_read_unlock_special cannot change.
> */
> special = t->rcu_read_unlock_special;
> - rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> - if (!special.s && !rdp->exp_deferred_qs) {
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> - return;
> - }

The point of this check is the common case of this function being invoked
when both fields are zero, avoiding the below redundant store and all the
extra checks of subfields of special.

Or are you saying that current compilers figure all this out?

Thanx, Paul

> t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs = false;
> if (special.b.need_qs) {
> rcu_qs();
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = false;
> - if (!t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s && !rdp->exp_deferred_qs) {
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> - return;
> - }
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -460,12 +451,9 @@ rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long flags)
> * tasks are handled when removing the task from the
> * blocked-tasks list below.
> */
> + rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> if (rdp->exp_deferred_qs) {
> rcu_report_exp_rdp(rdp);
> - if (!t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s) {
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> - return;
> - }
> }
>
> /* Clean up if blocked during RCU read-side critical section. */
> --
> 2.20.1
>