> From: Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:29 PM > To: Zhuo, Qiuxu <qiuxu.zhuo@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx; Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>; Josh > Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Neeraj Upadhyay > <quic_neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steven > Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Mathieu Desnoyers > <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lai Jiangshan > <jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx>; rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/rcuscale: Stop kfree_scale_thread thread(s) > after unloading rcuscale > > > > On Mar 16, 2023, at 9:17 AM, Zhuo, Qiuxu <qiuxu.zhuo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> [...] > >>>> > >>>> How about to pull the rcu_scale_cleanup() function after > >> kfree_scale_cleanup(). > >>>> This groups kfree_* functions and groups rcu_scale_* functions. > >>>> Then the code would look cleaner. > >>>> So, do you think the changes below are better? > >>> > >>> IMHO, I don't think doing such a code move is better. Just add a new > >>> header file and declare the function there. But see what Paul says > >>> first. > >> > >> This situation is likely to be an early hint that the kvfree_rcu() > >> testing should be split out from kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c. > > > > Another is that it's a bit expensive to create a new header file just > > for eliminating a function declaration. ;-) > > What is so expensive about new files? It is a natural organization structure. > > > So, if no objections, I'd like to send out the v2 patch with the updates below: > > > > - Move rcu_scale_cleanup() after kfree_scale_cleanup() to eliminate the > > declaration of kfree_scale_cleanup(). Though this makes the patch bigger, > > get the file rcuscale.c much cleaner. > > > > - Remove the unnecessary step "modprobe torture" from the commit > message. > > > > - Add the description for why move rcu_scale_cleanup() after > > kfree_scale_cleanup() to the commit message. > > Honestly if you are moving so many lines around, you may as well split it out > into a new module. > The kfree stuff being clubbed in the same file has also been a major > annoyance. I'm OK with creating a new kernel module for these kfree stuffs, but do we really need to do that? @paulmck, what's your suggestion for the next step? > - Joel > > > > Thanks! > > -Qiuxu > > > >> [...]
