[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180102202454.GQ7829@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 12:24:54 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
brouer@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 07:17:35PM -0800, Rao Shoaib wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/2017 05:39 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>I left it out on purpose because the call in tiny is a little different
> >>
> >>rcutiny.h:
> >>
> >>static inline void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
> >> void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
> >>{
> >> call_rcu(head, func);
> >>}
> >>
> >>tree.c:
> >>
> >>void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
> >> void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu))
> >>{
> >> __call_rcu(head, func, rcu_state_p, -1, 1);
> >>}
> >>EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfree_call_rcu);
> >>
> >>If we want the code to be exactly same I can create a lazy version
> >>for tiny as well. However, I don not know where to move
> >>kfree_call_rcu() from it's current home in rcutiny.h though. Any
> >>thoughts ?
> >I might be missing something subtle here, but in case I am not, my
> >suggestion is to simply rename rcutiny.h's kfree_call_rcu() and otherwise
> >leave it as is. If you want to update the type of the second argument,
> >which got missed back in the day, there is always this:
> >
> >static inline void call_rcu_lazy(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >{
> > call_rcu(head, func);
> >}
> >
> >The reason that Tiny RCU doesn't handle laziness specially is because
> >Tree RCU's handling of laziness is a big no-op on the single CPU systems
> >on which Tiny RCU runs. So Tiny RCU need do nothing special to support
> >laziness.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> Hi Paul,
>
> I can not just change the name as __kfree_call_rcu macro calls
> kfree_call_rcu(). I have made tiny version of kfree_call_rcu() call
> rcu_call_lazy() which calls call_rcu(). As far as the type is
> concerned, my bad, I cut and posted from an older release. Latest
> code is already using the typedef.
Hello, Rao,
Perhaps it would be best if you simply reposted the latest patch. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists