Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp358814pxu; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:11:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0xFlPC9RuXvvuyjktfMshpHxOBCD7AS2Hrf7l4v7DpmFyuvnkyxvr22KTVw0b+5gExM3e X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1009:: with SMTP id ox9mr10650983ejb.37.1607688699465; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:11:39 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1607688699; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=K+YkKXAVWVFVP/PKOtUgz9kpa2Z3oj9OCgVNEiYIr0WVzGVlehoBceCLMIvBPIDoaI tdLlbAns3SQTmhSRlKnQbpP4k2iYnhvE43HRP7XJL8raeioWHYZufuLQEqNLCG6MeoYB S7nSWK01sXFhPg6/iGrI6vVUqcYXrnECWAj/jQjjtJR89jV1fy97H/OOq4+quOIpmOWj I3g/UehmKiw/0piEa6ScroEjWewR+TnHM4wygL0IHBRV4iZX5xNPyjEfEAmvjEZUxJSj 3CiNw00WZ+fGuJy07eDyi79vnpEgDK6wgMJ3vdjrKrR+7Pw1DyeW4IgoMQJMdkLw6o1G Nsaw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to :subject; bh=Y4YJrY16jOuVyEG1yW8kuU+CEGUf8ukmLBg9cmcXdx4=; b=UNOt47+ZWwgXO6bAK8nVNlDeYcDGyoudovNnVJcSecVGbm2MmXKf3/VTVZanJdfvce WPOexS0SIaaN1HD2B8KsgRTAHardOce9F5VeXR22aNK1y2x6tKnkiTL5+nTdPj/Gc6NH h1UiKBDws5+c63uahRqs6BDIMIgdJownd3AkcgqBuPC3l1W/KXJhP2YX/eDHbOreqc1V 8euvN3zNNKPKi1PtSK2/hWjnETFLEfFV1dsIx9lz6QwlT5Rvwb9ZrZrF3dHtwys+lpzH UNHsOfnvCGpo7gUWmSXHIHzl/O37LU/EAPTL0gwNFxLGV9iMshbhBff6fBfTdeZT0aFO 7Pfw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d21si4670430edy.92.2020.12.11.04.11.16; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:11:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2436761AbgLKHO0 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 02:14:26 -0500 Received: from out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.133]:60855 "EHLO out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390203AbgLKHON (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 02:14:13 -0500 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R531e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04426;MF=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=4;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0UID7YA0_1607670809; Received: from 30.21.164.54(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0UID7YA0_1607670809) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:13:29 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] blk-iocost: Use alloc_percpu_gfp() to simplify the code To: Tejun Heo Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1ba7a38d5a6186b1e71432ef424c23ba1904a365.1607591591.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> From: Baolin Wang Message-ID: <33480f8a-89a3-3ed9-6fd0-95b2944ccbdd@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:13:29 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Tejun, > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 06:56:45PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> Use alloc_percpu_gfp() with __GFP_ZERO flag, which can remove >> some explicit initialization code. > > __GFP_ZERO is implicit for percpu allocations and local[64]_t's initial > states aren't guaranteed to be all zeros on different archs. Thanks for teaching me this, at least I did not get this from the local_ops Documentation before. Just out of curiosity, these local[64]_t variables are also allocated from budy allocator ultimately, why they can not be initialized to zeros on some ARCHs with __GFP_ZERO? Could you elaborate on about this restriction? Thanks. By the way, seems the kyber-iosched has the same issue, since the 'struct kyber_cpu_latency' also contains an atomic_t variable. kqd->cpu_latency = alloc_percpu_gfp(struct kyber_cpu_latency, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO); if (!kqd->cpu_latency) goto err_kqd;