[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <371c84608bd10736de6b1a8abee3fd1d43664a9a.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:17:38 +0300
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu
<song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav
Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
<jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan
<shuah@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v6 1/6] bpf/helpers: introduce sleepable
bpf_timers
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 19:20 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
[...]
> That was my initial assumption too, but Alexei told me it was fine.
> And I think he is correct because kfree_rcu doesn't need the rcu_head
> to be initialized.
>
> So in the end, we initialize the memory as a work_struct, and when
> that work kicks in, we reuse that exact same memory as the rcu_head.
> This is fine because that work will never be reused.
Oh, I get it, thank you for explanation.
Thanks,
Eduard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists