On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 10:57:06AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 9:53 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? It is not a particularly high priority. > If it were me doing this, I would try to split it just because in the > long term I may have to maintain or deal with it. > > I was also thinking a new scale directory _may_ make sense for > performance tests. > > kernel/rcu/scaletests/kfree.c > kernel/rcu/scaletests/core.c > kernel/rcu/scaletests/ref.c > > Or something like that. I don't believe we are there yet, but... > and then maybe putt common code into: kernel/rcu/scaletests/common.c ...splitting out the common code within the current directory/file structure makes a lot of sense to me. Not that I have checked up on exactly how much common code there really is. ;-) Thanx, Paul > - Joel > > > > > @paulmck, what's your suggestion for the next step? > > > > > - Joel > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > -Qiuxu > > > > > > > >> [...]
