[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181219153022.w5le6nf7meiogh72@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:30:22 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kmemleak: Turn kmemleak_lock to raw spinlock on RT
On 2018-12-18 15:07:45 [+0000], Catalin Marinas wrote:
…
> It may be worth running some performance/latency tests during kmemleak
> scanning (echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak) but at a quick look,
> I don't think we'd see any difference with a raw_spin_lock_t.
>
> With a bit more thinking (though I'll be off until the new year), we
> could probably get rid of the kmemleak_lock entirely in scan_block() and
> make lookup_object() and the related rbtree code in kmemleak RCU-safe.
Okay. So let me apply that patch into my RT tree with your ack (from the
other email). And then I hope that it either shows up upstream or gets
replaced with RCU in the ende :)
Thanks.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists