[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5580C054.2080809@plumgrid.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:33:24 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: call_rcu from trace_preempt
On 6/16/15 10:37 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> + kfree(l);
>> >
>> >that's not right, since such thread defeats rcu protection of lookup.
>> >We need either kfree_rcu/call_rcu or synchronize_rcu.
>> >Obviously the former is preferred that's why I'm still digging into it.
>> >Probably a thread that does kfree_rcu would be ok, but we shouldn't
>> >be doing it unconditionally. For all networking programs and 99%
>> >of tracing programs the existing code is fine and I don't want to
>> >slow it down to tackle the corner case.
>> >Extra spin_lock just to add it to the list is also quite costly.
> Use a irq_work() handler to do the kfree_rcu(), and use llist (lockless
> list) to add items to the list.
have been studying irq_work and llist... it will work, but it's quite
costly too. Every kfree_rcu will be replaced with irq_work_queue(),
which is irq_work_claim() with one lock_cmpxchg plus another
lock_cmpxchg in llist_add, plus another lock_cmpxchg for our own llist
of 'to be kfree_rcu-ed htab elements'. That's a lot.
The must be better solution. Need to explore more.
--
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