From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bn3nam01on0100.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.33.100]:6816
	"EHLO NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754409AbcGTWDG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:03:06 -0400
Message-ID: <578FF50E.8030503@hpe.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:02:54 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] lib/dlock-list: Distributed and lock-protected
 lists
References: <1468604383-40362-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1468604383-40362-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <20160718233803.GN3078@mtj.duckdns.org> <578E7497.30602@hpe.com> <20160719192333.GP3078@mtj.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160719192333.GP3078@mtj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/19/2016 03:23 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:42:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> +int alloc_dlock_list_head(struct dlock_list_head *dlist)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct dlock_list_head dlist_tmp;
>>>> +	int cpu;
>>>> +
>>>> +	dlist_tmp.head = alloc_percpu(struct dlock_list_head_percpu);
>>>> +	if (!dlist_tmp.head)
>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>>>> +		struct dlock_list_head_percpu *head;
>>>> +
>>>> +		head = per_cpu_ptr(dlist_tmp.head, cpu);
>>>> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&head->list);
>>>> +		head->lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&head->lock);
>>>> +		lockdep_set_class(&head->lock,&dlock_list_key);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	dlist->head = dlist_tmp.head;
>>> Just use dlist->head directly or use local __perpcu head pointer?
>> I just don't want to expose the structure to world until it is fully
>> initialized. If you think I am over-cautious, I can use dlist->head as
>> suggested.
> I don't think it makes any actual difference.  No strong opinion
> either way.  Just use local __percpu head pointer then?

I have run sparse on dlock_list.c. There is no need to use the __percpu 
tag here. The head gets assigned the result of per_cpu_ptr() which has 
no __percpu annotation. I actually got sparse warning if I used the 
__percpu tag.

Cheers,
Longman