lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Transform kfree_rcu() into kvfree_rcu()
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 08:57:00AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 00:31:04 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > I see problems. We would then have two different names for exactly the
> > same thing.
> >
> > Seems like it would be a lot easier to simply document the existing
> > kfree_rcu() behavior, especially given that it apparently already works.
> > The really doesn't seem to me to be worth a name change.
>
> Honestly, I don't believe this is an RCU sub-system decision. This is a
> memory management decision.

I couldn't agree more!

To that end, what are your thoughts on this patch?

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1513895570-28640-1-git-send-email-rao.shoaib@oracle.com

Advantages include the ability to optimize based on sl[aou]b state,
getting rid of the 4K offset hack in __is_kfree_rcu_offset(), better
cache localite, and, as you say, putting the naming responsibility
in the memory-management domain.

> If we have kmalloc(), vmalloc(), kfree(), vfree() and kvfree(), and we
> want kmalloc() to be freed with kfree(), and vmalloc() to be freed with
> vfree(), and for strange reasons, we don't know how the data was
> allocated we have kvfree(). That's an mm decision not an rcu one. We
> should have kfree_rcu(), vfree_rcu() and kvfree_rcu(), and honestly,
> they should not depend on kvfree() doing the same thing for everything.
> Each should call the corresponding member that they represent. Which
> would change this patch set.
>
> Why? Too much coupling between RCU and MM. What if in the future
> something changes and kvfree() goes away or changes drastically. We
> would then have to go through all the users of RCU to change them too.
>
> To me kvfree() is a special case and should not be used by RCU as a
> generic function. That would make RCU and MM much more coupled than
> necessary.

And that is one reason I am viewing the name-change patch with great
suspicion, especially given that there seems to be some controversy
among the memory-management folks as to exactly what the names should be.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-08 05:10    [W:0.065 / U:15.832 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site