Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753792AbdLUMgc (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:40381 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752566AbdLUMgb (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 07:36:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:36:30 -0800 From: Matthew Wilcox To: rao.shoaib@oracle.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, brouer@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c Message-ID: <20171221123630.GB22405@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <1513844387-2668-1-git-send-email-rao.shoaib@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1513844387-2668-1-git-send-email-rao.shoaib@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1660 Lines: 46 On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:19:47AM -0800, rao.shoaib@oracle.com wrote: > This patch moves kfree_call_rcu() and related macros out of rcu code. A new > function __call_rcu_lazy() is created for calling __call_rcu() with the lazy > flag. Something you probably didn't know ... there are two RCU implementations in the kernel; Tree and Tiny. It looks like you've only added __call_rcu_lazy() to Tree and you'll also need to add it to Tiny. > Also moving macros generated following checkpatch noise. I do not know > how to silence checkpatch as there is nothing wrong. > > CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'offset' - possible side-effects? > #91: FILE: include/linux/slab.h:348: > +#define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \ > + do { \ > + BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(offset)); \ > + kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(offset)); \ > + } while (0) What checkpatch is warning you about here is that somebody might call __kfree_rcu(p, a++); and this would expand into do { \ BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(a++)); \ kfree_call_rcu(p, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(a++)); \ } while (0) which would increment 'a' twice, and cause pain and suffering. That's pretty unlikely usage of __kfree_rcu(), but I suppose it's not impossible. We have various hacks to get around this kind of thing; for example I might do this as:: #define __kfree_rcu(head, offset) \ do { \ unsigned long __o = offset; BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(__o)); \ kfree_call_rcu(head, (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)(__o)); \ } while (0) Now offset is only evaluated once per invocation of the macro. The other two warnings are the same problem.