Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/23] rcu: Break up rcu_gp_kthread() intosubfunctions

[Josh Triplett]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:32:07AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:39:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct rcu_state *rsp = arg;
> > > +       struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> > > +
> > > +       for (;;) {
> > > +
> > > +               /* Handle grace-period start. */
> > > +               for (;;) {
> > > +                       wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq, rsp->gp_flags);
> > > +                       if (rsp->gp_flags && rcu_gp_init(rsp))
> > > +                               break;
> > > +                       cond_resched();
> > > +                       flush_signals(current);
> > > +               }
> > >  
> > >                 /* Handle grace-period end. */
> > >                 for (;;) {
> > >                         wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq,
> > >                                                  !ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) &&
> > >                                                  !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp));
> > >                         if (!ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) &&
> > > +                           !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp) &&
> > > +                           rcu_gp_cleanup(rsp))
> > >                                 break;
> > > +                       cond_resched();
> > >                         flush_signals(current);
> > >                 }
> > >         }
> > >         return 0;
> > >  } 
> > 
> > Should there not be a kthread_stop() / kthread_park() call somewhere in
> > there?
> 
> The kthread stops only when the system goes down, so no need for any
> kthread_stop() or kthread_park().  The "return 0" suppresses complaints
> about falling of the end of a non-void function.

Huh, I thought GCC knew to not emit that warning unless it actually
found control flow reaching the end of the function; since the infinite
loop has no break in it, you shouldn't need the return.  Annoying.

> > Also, it could be me, but all those nested for (;;) loops make the flow
> > rather non-obvious.
> 
> For those two loops, I suppose I could pull the cond_resched() and
> flush_signals() to the top, and make a do-while out of it.

I think it makes more sense to move the wait_event_interruptible to the
bottom, and make a while out of it.

- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/