linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/24] rcu/tiny: move kvfree_call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200504124520.GC17577@pc636>
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 14:45:20 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/24] rcu/tiny: move kvfree_call_rcu() out of header

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 04:03:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:59:00PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > Move inlined kvfree_call_rcu() function out of the
> > header file. This step is a preparation for head-less
> > support.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/rcutiny.h | 6 +-----
> >  kernel/rcu/tiny.c       | 6 ++++++
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcutiny.h b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > index 0c6315c4a0fe..7eb66909ae1b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > @@ -34,11 +34,7 @@ static inline void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
> >  	synchronize_rcu();
> >  }
> >  
> > -static inline void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > -{
> > -	call_rcu(head, func);
> > -}
> > -
> > +void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
> >  void rcu_qs(void);
> >  
> >  static inline void rcu_softirq_qs(void)
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> > index aa897c3f2e92..508c82faa45c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> > @@ -177,6 +177,12 @@ void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> >  
> > +void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > +{
> > +	call_rcu(head, func);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvfree_call_rcu);
> 
> This increases the size of Tiny RCU.  Plus in Tiny RCU, the overhead of
> synchronize_rcu() is exactly zero.  So why not make the single-argument
> kvfree_call_rcu() just unconditionally do synchronize_rcu() followed by
> kvfree() or whatever?  That should go just fine into the header file.
> 
I was thinking about it. That makes sense. Let me rework it then :)

--
Vlad Rezki