| Message ID | 3a7056408e391ff0c66b5f50c460a7b9f796228f.1694625260.git.andreyknvl@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | stackdepot: allow evicting stack traces | expand |
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 7:15 PM <andrey.konovalov@linux.dev> wrote: > > From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> > > Instead of using the last pointer in stack_pools for storing the pointer > to a new pool (which does not yet store any stack records), use a new > new_pool variable. > > This a purely code readability change: it seems more logical to store > the pointer to a pool with a special meaning in a dedicated variable. > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> Reviewed-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c index e428f470faf6..81d8733cdbed 100644 --- a/lib/stackdepot.c +++ b/lib/stackdepot.c @@ -85,6 +85,8 @@ static unsigned int stack_hash_mask; /* Array of memory regions that store stack traces. */ static void *stack_pools[DEPOT_MAX_POOLS]; +/* Newly allocated pool that is not yet added to stack_pools. */ +static void *new_pool; /* Currently used pool in stack_pools. */ static int pool_index; /* Offset to the unused space in the currently used pool. */ @@ -233,7 +235,7 @@ static void depot_keep_new_pool(void **prealloc) * as long as we do not exceed the maximum number of pools. */ if (pool_index + 1 < DEPOT_MAX_POOLS) { - stack_pools[pool_index + 1] = *prealloc; + new_pool = *prealloc; *prealloc = NULL; } @@ -263,6 +265,8 @@ static bool depot_update_pools(size_t required_size, void **prealloc) * stack_depot_fetch. */ WRITE_ONCE(pool_index, pool_index + 1); + stack_pools[pool_index] = new_pool; + new_pool = NULL; pool_offset = 0; /*