Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:50:32 +0800 | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V4 1/1] rcu: introduce kfree_rcu() |
| |
On 03/15/2011 07:30 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:46:20PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> kfree_rcu() which was original proposed by Lai 2.5 years ago is one of >> the most important RCU TODO list entries, Lai and Manfred have worked on >> patches for this. This V4 patch is based on the Manfred's patch and >> the V1 of Lai's patch. (These two patches are almost the same >> in implementation, and this patch is mainly based on the Manfred's). >> >> Lai's V1 patch: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/18/1 >> Manfred's patch: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/2/115 >> RCU TODO list: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/rcutodo.html >> >> This new introduced API kfree_rcu() primitive kfree()s the specified memory >> after a RCU grace period elapses. >> >> It replaces many simple "call_rcu(head, simple_kfree_callback)"; >> These many simple_kfree_callback() instances just does >> >> kfree(containerof(head,struct whatever_struct,rcu_member)); >> >> These simple_kfree_callback() instances are just duplicate code, we need >> a generic function for them. >> >> And kfree_rcu() is also help for unloadable modules, kfree_rcu() does not >> queue any function which belong to the module, so a rcu_barrier() can >> be avoid when module exit. (If we queue any other function by call_rcu(), >> rcu_barrier() is still needed.) > > Thank you for putting this together! It does represent a nice > reduction in code size. > > Once it settles out a bit, I intend to queue this patch. It would be > best if the subsystems queue their own patches using kfree_rcu() once > this patch reaches mainline. >
It seems that the subsystems maintainers just Ack the patches. I hope Ingo queue the Acked using kfree_rcu() patches into -tip, it will help the kfree_rcu() reaches mainline earlier.
Thanks, Lai
| |