On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:10:55AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:45:13PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 08:57:00 -0500
> > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > > To me kvfree() is a special case and should not be used by RCU as a
> > > generic function. That would make RCU and MM much more coupled than
> > > necessary.
> > 
> > For the record, I fully agree with Steve here. 
> > 
> > And being a performance "fanatic" I don't like to have the extra branch
> > (and compares) in the free code path... but it's a MM-decision (and
> > sometimes you should not listen to "fanatics" ;-))
> 
> While free_rcu() is not withut its performance requirements, I think it's
> currently dominated by cache misses and not by branches.  By the time RCU
> gets to run callbacks, memory is certainly L1/L2 cache-cold and probably
> L3 cache-cold.  Also calling the callback functions is utterly impossible
> for the branch predictor.

This seems to have fallen by the wayside.

To get things going again, I suggest starting out by simply replacing
the kfree() in __rcu_reclaim() with kvfree().  If desired, a kvfree_rcu()
can also be defined as a synonym for kfree_rcu().

This gets us a very simple and small patch which provides the ability
to dispose of kvmalloc() memory after a grace period.

                                                                Thanx, Paul

Reply via email to