[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170114151921.GA32693@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:19:21 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...antool.org>
Cc: cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jsvana@...com,
hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] slab: remove synchronous rcu_barrier() call in memcg
cache release path
Hello, Vladimir.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 04:19:39PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:54:42AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > This patch updates the cache release path so that it simply uses
> > call_rcu() instead of the synchronous rcu_barrier() + custom batching.
> > This doesn't cost more while being logically simpler and way more
> > scalable.
>
> The point of rcu_barrier() is to wait until all rcu calls freeing slabs
> from the cache being destroyed are over (rcu_free_slab, kmem_rcu_free).
> I'm not sure if call_rcu() guarantees that for all rcu implementations
> too. If it did, why would we need rcu_barrier() at all?
Yeah, I had a similar question and scanned its users briefly. Looks
like it's used in combination with ctors so that its users can
opportunistically dereference objects and e.g. check ids / state /
whatever without worrying about the objects' lifetimes.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists