public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox