[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200924111907.GE2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 13:19:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:16:14AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> The key point is "enough". We need pages to make a) fast progress b) support
> single argument of kvfree_rcu(one_arg). Not vice versa. That "enough" depends
> on scheduler latency and vague pre-allocated number of pages, it might
> be not enough what would require to refill it more and more or we can overshoot
> that would lead to memory overhead. So we have here timing issues and
> not accurate model. IMHO.
I'm firmly opposed to the single argument kvfree_rcu() idea, that's
requiring memory to free memory.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists