On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:43:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com
There's no reason to call rcu_barrier() on every deactivate_locked_super().
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
IIUC, moving rcu_barrier() up should help, but I can't say that I fully
understand SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU semantics.
.. hmm. I think you may be right. Even if we do move it up, we
probably shouldn't use it.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
.. hmm. I think you may be right. Even if we do move it up, we
probably shouldn't use it.
We don't even want SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, since we do the delayed RCU
free for other reasons anyway, so it would duplicate the RCU delaying
