On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 06:46:29PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/26/24 18:40, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 06:35:27PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 9/18/24 16:40, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >> >>
> >> > Thank you for valuable feedback! Indeed it is hard to follow, even
> >> > though it works correctly.
> >> > I will add the comment and also break the loop on first queuing as you
> >> > suggested!
> >> >
> >> > It does not make sense to loop further because following iterations
> >> > are never successful
> >> > thus never overwrite "queued" variable(it never reaches the
> >> > queue_rcu_work() call).
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> > bool queued = false;
> >> > ...
> >> > for (i = 0; i < KFREE_N_BATCHES; i++) {
> >> > if (need_offload_krc(krcp)) {
> >> > queued = queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &krwp->rcu_work);
> >> > ...
> >> > return queued;
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > if we queued, "if(need_offload_krc())" condition is never true anymore.
> >> >
> >> > Below refactoring makes it clear. I will send the patch to address it.
> >>
> >> Looks good, AFAICT. Can you send the full patch then? Thanks.
> >>
> > I will do so. We can send it from RCU-side for rcX, this merge window or
> > you can do it.
> >
> > What is the best for you?
>
> Guess I could do via slab tree since the original commit went there too.
>
Make sense. I will send to you then!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
