On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:19:47AM -0800, rao.shoaib@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> This patch moves kfree_call_rcu() and related macros out of rcu code. A new
> function __call_rcu_lazy() is created for calling __call_rcu() with the lazy
> flag.
Something you probably didn't know ... there are two RCU implementations
in the kernel; Tree and Tiny. It looks like you've only added
__call_rcu_lazy() to Tree and you'll also need to add it to Tiny.
> Also moving macros generated following checkpatch noise. I do not know
> how to silence checkpatch as there is nothing wrong.
>
> CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'offset' - possible side-effects?
> #91: FILE: include/linux/slab.h:348:
> +#define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \
> + do { \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(offset)); \
> + kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(offset)); \
> + } while (0)
What checkpatch is warning you about here is that somebody might call
__kfree_rcu(p, a++);
and this would expand into
do { \
BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(a++)); \
kfree_call_rcu(p, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(a++)); \
} while (0)
which would increment 'a' twice, and cause pain and suffering.
That's pretty unlikely usage of __kfree_rcu(), but I suppose it's not
impossible. We have various hacks to get around this kind of thing;
for example I might do this as::
#define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \
do { \
unsigned long __o = offset;
BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(__o)); \
kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(__o)); \
} while (0)
Now offset is only evaluated once per invocation of the macro. The other
two warnings are the same problem.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
