Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 8/10/24 13:44, Kamlesh Gurudasani wrote:...
Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Just curious, what is your reason for avoiding too many max() calls? BothI had actually thought about doing that as an alternative. I used thediff --git a/kernel/padata.c b/kernel/padata.cThanks for the patch and detailed comment.
index 53f4bc912712..0fa6c2895460 100644
--- a/kernel/padata.c
+++ b/kernel/padata.c
@@ -517,6 +517,13 @@ void __init padata_do_multithreaded(struct padata_mt_job *job)
ps.chunk_size = max(ps.chunk_size, job->min_chunk);
ps.chunk_size = roundup(ps.chunk_size, job->align);
+ /*
+ * chunk_size can be 0 if the caller sets min_chunk to 0. So force it
+ * to at least 1 to prevent divide-by-0 panic in padata_mt_helper().`
+ */
+ if (!ps.chunk_size)could it be
+ ps.chunk_size = 1U;
+
ps.chunk_size = max(ps.chunk_size, 1U);
or can be merged with earlier max()
ps.chunk_size = max(ps.chunk_size, max(job->min_chunk, 1U));
ps.chunk_size = roundup(ps.chunk_size, job->align);
sits well with how entire file is written and compiler is optimizing
them to same level.
current patch to avoid putting too many max() calls there. I can go this
route if you guys prefer this.
if (!ps.chunk_size)
ps.chunk_size = 1U;
and
ps.chunk_size = max(ps.chunk_size, 1U);
are having same number of instructions [1].
[1] https://godbolt.org/z/ajrK59c67
We can avoid nested max(), though following would make it easier to understand.
ps.chunk_size = max(ps.chunk_size, 1U);
Cheers,
Kamlesh
Cheers,
Longman