On 3/12/25 16:14, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:58 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I find the program flow in this function quite complex and hard to >> > follow. I think refactoring the above block starting from "pcs = >> > this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_sheaves)" would somewhat simplify it. That >> > eliminates the need for the "got_empty" label and makes the >> > locking/unlocking sequence of s->cpu_sheaves->lock a bit more clear. >> >> I'm a bit lost, refactoring how exactly? > > I thought moving the code above into a function above starting from > "pcs = this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_sheaves)" into its own function would > simplify the flow. But as I said, it's a nit. If you try and don't > like that feel free to ignore this suggestion. OK did it and although I didn't manage to remove the got_empty label, it's better and I realized I can handle the cases there in a better order and add one extra possible fallback in the unlikely cases. Please check the result when I send v3? thanks >> >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> +do_free: >> >> + pcs->main->objects[pcs->main->size++] = object; >> >> + >> >> + local_unlock_irqrestore(&s->cpu_sheaves->lock, flags); >> >> + >> >> + stat(s, FREE_PCS); >> >> +}
