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:   Wed, 7 Feb 2018 20:10:39 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>, josh@joshtriplett.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, 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>
 <20180207050200.GH3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <db9bda80-7506-ae25-2c0a-45eaa08963d9@virtuozzo.com>
 <20180207083104.GK3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180207085700.393f90d0@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180207174513.5cc9b503@redhat.com>
 <20180207181055.GB12446@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20180207132619.6595e4a9@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180207132619.6595e4a9@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180208041039.GR3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:10:55 -0800
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > For the record, I fully agree with Steve here. 
> 
> Thanks, but...
> 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> I agree with Matthew.
> 
> This is far from any fast path. A few extra branches isn't going to
> hurt anything here as it's mostly just garbage collection. With or
> without the Spectre fixes.

What Steve said!

							Thanx, Paul