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.
> <snip>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index a60616e69b66..b1f883fcd918 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -3607,11 +3607,12 @@ kvfree_rcu_queue_batch(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp)
> }
>
> // One work is per one batch, so there are three
> - // "free channels", the batch can handle. It can
> - // be that the work is in the pending state when
> - // channels have been detached following by each
> - // other.
> + // "free channels", the batch can handle. Break
> + // the loop since it is done with this CPU thus
> + // queuing an RCU work is _always_ success here.
> queued = queue_rcu_work(system_unbound_wq,
> &krwp->rcu_work);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!queued);
> + break;
> }
> }
> <snip>
>
> Thanks!
>
