[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48D2882B.9060806@colorfullife.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:56:11 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: introduce kfree_rcu()
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:18:28PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
>> sometimes a rcu callback is just calling kfree() to free a struct's memory
>> (we say this callback is a trivial callback.).
>> this patch introduce kfree_rcu() to do these things directly, easily.
>>
>
> Interesting! Please see questions and comments below.
>
>
>> There are 4 reasons that we need kfree_rcu():
>>
>> 1) unloadable modules:
>> a module(rcu callback is defined in this module) using rcu must
>> call rcu_barrier() when unload. rcu_barrier() will increase
>> the system's overhead(the more cpus the worse) and
>> rcu_barrier() is very time-consuming. if all rcu callback defined
>> in this module are trivial callback, we can just call kfree_rcu()
>> instead, save a rcu_barrier() when unload.
>>
Hmm: why is rcu_barrier() sufficient to prevent races?
Offlining a cpu reorders rcu callbacks - rcu_barrier() can return before
all previous call_rcu() callbacks were called.
--
Manfred
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists