On 03/10, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So I'm not a huge fan of SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU in general, but for > really core data structures like this, I think it's worth it.
I agree, but we have other users which can't be fixed if we just add SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to task_struct_cachep. So we need something else anyway. > The > overhead of "call_rcu()" can be quite noticeable, Yes, this was my concern too, > and the other > alternative solutions (like that suggested task_rcu_dereference()) are > even *more* complex and subtle Yes, but at least the ugliness is hidden inside task_rcu_dereference(). The usage is simple. > and generally perform worse. Well, task_rcu_dereference() should be cheap enough. probe_slab_address() is a plain LOAD unless CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC. But! > I'm not claiming it's perfect, Same here, it is not that I think task_rcu_dereference() is very nice. So I leave this to you and Peter ;) Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
