On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 20:52 +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote: > It's not necessary to put kfree() in the critical area of the lock, so > let it out. > > Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunf...@huawei.com> > --- > kernel/async.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/async.c b/kernel/async.c > index 4f9c1d6..1de270d 100644 > --- a/kernel/async.c > +++ b/kernel/async.c > @@ -135,12 +135,12 @@ static void async_run_entry_fn(struct work_struct *work) > list_del_init(&entry->domain_list); > list_del_init(&entry->global_list); > > - /* 3) free the entry */ > - kfree(entry); > atomic_dec(&entry_count); > - > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags); > > + /* 3) free the entry */ > + kfree(entry); > + > /* 4) wake up any waiters */ > wake_up(&async_done); > }
It probably wouldn't hurt to update the patch description to mention that async_schedule_node_domain does the allocation outside of the lock, then takes the lock and does the list addition and entry_count increment inside the critical section so this is just updating the code to match that it seems. Otherwise the change itself looks safe to me, though I am not sure there is a performance gain to be had so this is mostly just a cosmetic patch. Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.du...@linux.intel.com>
