[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200504195128.GA21830@pc636>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 21:51:28 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/24] rcu/tree: cache specified number of objects
> > > Since we don't care about traversing backwards, isn't it better to use llist
> > > for this usecase?
> > >
> > > I think Vlad is using locking as we're also tracking the size of the llist to
> > > know when to free pages. This tracking could suffer from the lost-update
> > > problem without any locking, 2 lockless llist_add happened simulatenously.
> > >
> > > Also if list_head is used, it will take more space and still use locking.
> >
> > Indeed, it would be best to use a non-concurrent singly linked list.
>
> Ok cool :-)
>
> Is it safe to say something like the following is ruled out? ;-) :-D
> #define kfree_rcu_list_add llist_add
>
In that case i think it is better just to add a comment about using
llist_head. To state that it used as a singular list to save space
and the access is synchronized by the lock :)
IMHO.
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists