[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180207181055.GB12446@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:10:55 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
mingo@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, rao.shoaib@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Transform kfree_rcu() into kvfree_rcu()
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:45:13PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 08:57:00 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > To me kvfree() is a special case and should not be used by RCU as a
> > generic function. That would make RCU and MM much more coupled than
> > necessary.
>
> For the record, I fully agree with Steve here.
>
> And being a performance "fanatic" I don't like to have the extra branch
> (and compares) in the free code path... but it's a MM-decision (and
> sometimes you should not listen to "fanatics" ;-))
While free_rcu() is not withut its performance requirements, I think it's
currently dominated by cache misses and not by branches. By the time RCU
gets to run callbacks, memory is certainly L1/L2 cache-cold and probably
L3 cache-cold. Also calling the callback functions is utterly impossible
for the branch predictor.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists