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:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:15:25 +0000
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] signal: Make flush_sigqueue() use free_q to release
 memory
In-Reply-To: <20190322195926.GB10344@bombadil.infradead.org>
Message-ID: <01000169b534b9e8-31a2af2c-c396-47f9-8534-4cbd934ef09d-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <20190321214512.11524-1-longman@redhat.com> <20190321214512.11524-3-longman@redhat.com> <20190322015208.GD19508@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190322111642.GA28876@redhat.com> <d9e02cc4-3162-57b0-7924-9642aecb8f49@redhat.com>
 <01000169a686689d-bc18fecd-95e1-4b3e-8cd5-dad1b1c570cc-000000@email.amazonses.com> <93523469-48b0-07c8-54fd-300678af3163@redhat.com> <01000169a6ea5e46-f845b8db-730b-436e-980c-3e4273ad2e34-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20190322195926.GB10344@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.fQZZZ0Xtj2+TD7V5apTT/NrT6QKuPgzCT/IC7XYgDKI=:AmazonSES
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:39:31PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, Waiman Long wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >> I am looking forward to it.
> > > > There is also alrady rcu being used in these paths. kfree_rcu() would not
> > > > be enough? It is an estalished mechanism that is mature and well
> > > > understood.
> > > >
> > > In this case, the memory objects are from kmem caches, so they can't
> > > freed using kfree_rcu().
> >
> > Oh they can. kfree() can free memory from any slab cache.
>
> Only for SLAB and SLUB.  SLOB requires that you pass a pointer to the
> slab cache; it has no way to look up the slab cache from the object.

Well then we could either fix SLOB to conform to the others or add a
kmem_cache_free_rcu() variant.