On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:34:18PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/4/20 7:12 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:02:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> > 2) There was a proposal from Matthew Wilcox:
> >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/31/1015
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 06:12:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:02:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > 2) There was a proposal from Matthew Wilcox:
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/31/1015
> > >
> > >
> > > On non-RT, we could make that lock a raw spinlock.
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:02:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/3/20 6:30 PM, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > Some background and kfree_rcu()
> > ===
> > The pointers to be freed are stored in the per-cpu array to improve
> > performance, to enable an
On 8/4/20 7:12 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:02:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> > 2) There was a proposal from Matthew Wilcox:
>> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/31/1015
>> >
>> >
>> > On non-RT, we could make that lock a raw spinlock. On RT, we could
>> > decline
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:02:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > 2) There was a proposal from Matthew Wilcox:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/31/1015
> >
> >
> > On non-RT, we could make that lock a raw spinlock. On RT, we could
> > decline to take the lock. We'd need to abstract the
On 8/3/20 6:30 PM, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> Some background and kfree_rcu()
> ===
> The pointers to be freed are stored in the per-cpu array to improve
> performance, to enable an easier-to-use API, to accommodate vmalloc
> memmory and to support a single
Some background and kfree_rcu()
===
The pointers to be freed are stored in the per-cpu array to improve
performance, to enable an easier-to-use API, to accommodate vmalloc
memmory and to support a single argument of the kfree_rcu() when only
a pointer is passed. More
7 matches
Mail list logo