On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:15:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:21:12PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 01:19:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> > Hmm.. The problem is there is a demand in it:
>
> People demand ponies all the time, the usual answer is: No.
>
I see your view. From the other hand it is clear, there is still
demand in it:
<snip>
void ext4_kvfree_array_rcu(void *to_free)
{
struct ext4_rcu_ptr *ptr = kzalloc(sizeof(*ptr), GFP_KERNEL);
if (ptr) {
ptr->ptr = to_free;
call_rcu(&ptr->rcu, ext4_rcu_ptr_callback);
return;
}
synchronize_rcu();
kvfree(ptr);
}
<snip>
--
Vlad Rezki
