> > > Since we don't care about traversing backwards, isn't it better to use > > > llist > > > for this usecase? > > > > > > I think Vlad is using locking as we're also tracking the size of the > > > llist to > > > know when to free pages. This tracking could suffer from the lost-update > > > problem without any locking, 2 lockless llist_add happened simulatenously. > > > > > > Also if list_head is used, it will take more space and still use locking. > > > > Indeed, it would be best to use a non-concurrent singly linked list. > > Ok cool :-) > > Is it safe to say something like the following is ruled out? ;-) :-D > #define kfree_rcu_list_add llist_add > In that case i think it is better just to add a comment about using llist_head. To state that it used as a singular list to save space and the access is synchronized by the lock :)
IMHO. -- Vlad Rezki
