Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 04 May 2020 16:15:55 -0400
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <20200504195128.GA21830@pc636>
References: <20200428205903.61704-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20200428205903.61704-10-urezki@gmail.com> <20200501212749.GD7560@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200504124323.GA17577@pc636> <20200504152437.GK2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200504174822.GA20446@pc636> <20200504180805.GA172409@google.com> <20200504190138.GU2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <CAEXW_YQmrfbaDocsc7bLULRR1yUv4=MMMEw3b0s1mXM8sEVVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200504195128.GA21830@pc636>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/24] rcu/tree: cache specified number of objects
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
From:   joel@joelfernandes.org
Message-ID: <2A623E6F-878C-4C1F-9045-56710DE7851B@joelfernandes.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On May 4, 2020 3:51:28 PM EDT, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail=2Ecom> wrote=
:
>> > > Since we don't care about traversing backwards, isn't it better
>to use llist
>> > > for this usecase?
>> > >
>> > > I think Vlad is using locking as we're also tracking the size of
>the llist to
>> > > know when to free pages=2E This tracking could suffer from the
>lost-update
>> > > problem without any locking, 2 lockless llist_add happened
>simulatenously=2E
>> > >
>> > > Also if list_head is used, it will take more space and still use
>locking=2E
>> >
>> > Indeed, it would be best to use a non-concurrent singly linked
>list=2E
>>=20
>> Ok cool :-)
>>=20
>> Is it safe to say something like the following is ruled out? ;-) :-D
>> #define kfree_rcu_list_add llist_add
>>=20
>In that case i think it is better just to add a comment about using
>llist_head=2E To state that it used as a singular list to save space
>and the access is synchronized by the lock :)
>
>IMHO=2E

Sounds good to me=2E thanks,

 - Joel

>
>--
>Vlad Rezki

--=20
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E