Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230801204121.929256934@infradead.org> <20230801211811.828443100@infradead.org>
 <CAEXW_YSJ-G_zUKLzLgvCkxAY-dg_Zxo6n=bEXyeEmo9hEMcZpg@mail.gmail.com> <20230809194822.GV212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230809194822.GV212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 03:35:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRZE7goE+KpoV5zkj=fLY3q33bf8HVMs0vWggZnxmdb5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] sched: Simplify get_nohz_timer_target()
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 3:48=E2=80=AFPM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2023 at 05:39:24PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 9:52=E2=80=AFAM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead=
.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Use guards to reduce gotos and simplify control flow.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/core.c |   15 ++++++---------
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -1097,25 +1097,22 @@ int get_nohz_timer_target(void)
> > >
> > >         hk_mask =3D housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TIMER);
> > >
> > > -       rcu_read_lock();
> > > +       guard(rcu)();
> > > +
> > >         for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> > >                 for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd), hk_mask) {
> > >                         if (cpu =3D=3D i)
> > >                                 continue;
> > >
> > > -                       if (!idle_cpu(i)) {
> > > -                               cpu =3D i;
> > > -                               goto unlock;
> > > -                       }
> > > +                       if (!idle_cpu(i))
> > > +                               return i;
> > >                 }
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         if (default_cpu =3D=3D -1)
> > >                 default_cpu =3D housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER);
> > > -       cpu =3D default_cpu;
> > > -unlock:
> > > -       rcu_read_unlock();
> > > -       return cpu;
> > > +
> > > +       return default_cpu;
> > >  }
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> >
> > I haven't looked into the actual implementation of the guard stuff,
> > but rcu_read_lock_guarded() is less of an eyesore to me than
> > guard(rcu)(); TBH.
>
> I readily admit it isn't the prettiest construct, my brain is warped by
> many years of C++ and I can read it as: guard<rcu>(), but I'm not sure
> that's actually better :-)
>
> The advantage of all this is that you also get:
>
>         scoped_guard (rcu) {
>         }
>
> for 'free'.

Yes, overall the readability improvement is quite appealing. Thank you Pete=
r!

 - Joel