* Huang Ying (ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Hi, Mathieu,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On 04/28/2011 10:37 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Huang Ying (ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> +/**
> >> + * gen_pool_for_each_chunk - iterate over chunks of generic memory pool
> >> + * @chunk: the struct gen_pool_chunk * to use as a loop cursor
> >> + * @pool: the generic memory pool
> >> + *
> >> + * Not lockless, proper mutual exclusion is needed to use this macro
> >> + * with other gen_pool function simultaneously.
> >> + */
> >> +#define gen_pool_for_each_chunk(chunk, pool) \
> >> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(chunk, &(pool)->chunks, next_chunk)
> >
> > Is it just me or this macro is never used ? Maybe you should consider
> > removing it.
>
> This macro is not used in this patch. But it is used in 4/4 of the
> patchset to free the backing pages before destroy the pool.
Depending on how frequently you want to use it, you might want to use
list_for_each_entry_rcu directly rather than a macro wrapper. E.g. for
2-3 uses, adding a macro just obfuscates the code IMHO (e.g. you don't
know it iterates on a RCU list by looking at the caller code).
>
> [snip]
> >> @@ -108,43 +226,50 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(gen_pool_destroy);
> >> * @size: number of bytes to allocate from the pool
> >> *
> >> * Allocate the requested number of bytes from the specified pool.
> >> - * Uses a first-fit algorithm.
> >> + * Uses a first-fit algorithm. Can not be used in NMI handler on
> >> + * architectures without NMI-safe cmpxchg implementation.
> >> */
> >> unsigned long gen_pool_alloc(struct gen_pool *pool, size_t size)
> >> {
> >> - struct list_head *_chunk;
> >> struct gen_pool_chunk *chunk;
> >> - unsigned long addr, flags;
> >> + unsigned long addr;
> >> int order = pool->min_alloc_order;
> >> - int nbits, start_bit, end_bit;
> >> + int nbits, start_bit = 0, end_bit, remain;
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG
> >> + BUG_ON(in_nmi());
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> if (size == 0)
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> nbits = (size + (1UL << order) - 1) >> order;
> >> -
> >> - read_lock(&pool->lock);
> >> - list_for_each(_chunk, &pool->chunks) {
> >> - chunk = list_entry(_chunk, struct gen_pool_chunk, next_chunk);
> >> + rcu_read_lock();
> >> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(chunk, &pool->chunks, next_chunk) {
> >> + if (size > atomic_read(&chunk->avail))
> >> + continue;
> >>
> >> end_bit = (chunk->end_addr - chunk->start_addr) >> order;
> >> -
> >> - spin_lock_irqsave(&chunk->lock, flags);
> >> - start_bit = bitmap_find_next_zero_area(chunk->bits, end_bit, 0,
> >> - nbits, 0);
> >> - if (start_bit >= end_bit) {
> >> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chunk->lock, flags);
> >> +retry:
> >> + start_bit = bitmap_find_next_zero_area(chunk->bits, end_bit,
> >> + start_bit, nbits, 0);
> >> + if (start_bit >= end_bit)
> >> continue;
> >> + remain = bitmap_set_ll(chunk->bits, start_bit, nbits);
> >> + if (remain) {
> >> + remain = bitmap_clear_ll(chunk->bits, start_bit,
> >> + nbits - remain);
> >> + BUG_ON(remain);
> >> + goto retry;
> >> }
> >>
> >> addr = chunk->start_addr + ((unsigned long)start_bit << order);
> >> -
> >> - bitmap_set(chunk->bits, start_bit, nbits);
> >> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chunk->lock, flags);
> >> - read_unlock(&pool->lock);
> >> + size = nbits << order;
> >> + atomic_sub(size, &chunk->avail);
> >> + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > I don't really like seeing a rcu_read_unlock() within a rcu list
> > iteration (even if it comes right before a "return"). Doing:
> >
> > unsigned long addr = 0;
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(chunk, &pool->chunks, next_chunk) {
> > if (...)
> > continue;
> > ...
> > addr = ...;
> > break;
> > }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > return addr;
> >
> > Would be more symmetric, and would remove one return path, which makes
> > the code easier to modify in the future.
>
> Unlock in loop is common in Linux kernel. Sometimes it makes code
> cleaner (but not always). Yes, for this case, we can avoid unlock in
> loop easily. But for the next case it is not so clean.
See comment below,
>
> >> return addr;
> >> }
> >> - read_unlock(&pool->lock);
> >> + rcu_read_unlock();
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(gen_pool_alloc);
> >> @@ -155,33 +280,73 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(gen_pool_alloc);
> >> * @addr: starting address of memory to free back to pool
> >> * @size: size in bytes of memory to free
> >> *
> >> - * Free previously allocated special memory back to the specified pool.
> >> + * Free previously allocated special memory back to the specified
> >> + * pool. Can not be used in NMI handler on architectures without
> >> + * NMI-safe cmpxchg implementation.
> >> */
> >> void gen_pool_free(struct gen_pool *pool, unsigned long addr, size_t size)
> >> {
> >> - struct list_head *_chunk;
> >> struct gen_pool_chunk *chunk;
> >> - unsigned long flags;
> >> int order = pool->min_alloc_order;
> >> - int bit, nbits;
> >> + int start_bit, nbits, remain;
> >>
> >> - nbits = (size + (1UL << order) - 1) >> order;
> >> -
> >> - read_lock(&pool->lock);
> >> - list_for_each(_chunk, &pool->chunks) {
> >> - chunk = list_entry(_chunk, struct gen_pool_chunk, next_chunk);
> >> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG
> >> + BUG_ON(in_nmi());
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> + nbits = (size + (1UL << order) - 1) >> order;
you could add:
remain = nbits;
> >> + rcu_read_lock();
> >> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(chunk, &pool->chunks, next_chunk) {
> >> if (addr >= chunk->start_addr && addr < chunk->end_addr) {
> >> BUG_ON(addr + size > chunk->end_addr);
> >> - spin_lock_irqsave(&chunk->lock, flags);
> >> - bit = (addr - chunk->start_addr) >> order;
> >> - while (nbits--)
> >> - __clear_bit(bit++, chunk->bits);
> >> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chunk->lock, flags);
> >> - break;
> >> + start_bit = (addr - chunk->start_addr) >> order;
You could turn this:
> >> + remain = bitmap_clear_ll(chunk->bits, start_bit, nbits);
> >> + BUG_ON(remain);
> >> + size = nbits << order;
> >> + atomic_add(size, &chunk->avail);
into:
remain = bitmap_clear_ll(chunk->bits, start_bit, nbits);
size = nbits << order;
atomic_add(size, &chunk->avail);
break;
> >> + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > Same comment as above apply here.
>
> It is harder to remove unlock in loop here. An extra variable should be
> used to indicate that something is freed from the pool. Do you think it
> is cleaner to just keep the unlock in loop here?
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang Ying
>
> > + return;
> > }
> > }
And turn this:
> > - BUG_ON(nbits > 0);
> > - read_unlock(&pool->lock);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > + BUG();
into:
BUG_ON(remain);
rcu_read_unlock();
Does that look OK to you ? On the plus side, you end up having a single
BUG_ON() in the function.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> > }
> [snip]
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
