Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:02:00 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, cl@linux.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, brouer@redhat.com, rao.shoaib@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Transform kfree_rcu() into kvfree_rcu()
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <151791170164.5994.8253310844733420079.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180207021703.GC3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180207042334.GA16175@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180207042334.GA16175@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180207050200.GH3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:34PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 06:17:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So it is OK to kvmalloc() something and pass it to either kfree() or
> > kvfree(), and it had better be OK to kvmalloc() something and pass it
> > to kvfree().
> > 
> > Is it OK to kmalloc() something and pass it to kvfree()?
> 
> Yes, it absolutely is.
> 
> void kvfree(const void *addr)
> {
>         if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
>                 vfree(addr);
>         else
>                 kfree(addr);
> }
> 
> > If so, is it really useful to have two different names here, that is,
> > both kfree_rcu() and kvfree_rcu()?
> 
> I think it's handy to have all three of kvfree_rcu(), kfree_rcu() and
> vfree_rcu() available in the API for the symmetry of calling kmalloc()
> / kfree_rcu().
> 
> Personally, I would like us to rename kvfree() to just free(), and have
> malloc(x) be an alias to kvmalloc(x, GFP_KERNEL), but I haven't won that
> fight yet.

But why not just have the existing kfree_rcu() API cover both kmalloc()
and kvmalloc()?  Perhaps I am not in the right forums, but I am not hearing
anyone arguing that the RCU API has too few members.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul