Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-3765-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:53:24 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
	Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>, Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@oracle.com>,
	Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-can@vger.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] replace call_rcu by kfree_rcu for simple
 kmem_cache_free callback
Message-ID: <62757652-8874-45d7-afec-734edeb03831@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20240609082726.32742-1-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
 <20240612143305.451abf58@kernel.org>
 <baee4d58-17b4-4918-8e45-4d8068a23e8c@paulmck-laptop>
 <Zmov7ZaL-54T9GiM@zx2c4.com>
 <Zmo9-YGraiCj5-MI@zx2c4.com>
 <08ee7eb2-8d08-4f1f-9c46-495a544b8c0e@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240613071738.0655ff4f@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240613071738.0655ff4f@kernel.org>

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 07:17:38AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:38:02 -0700 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > o	Make rcu_barrier() wait for kfree_rcu() objects.  (This is
> > 	surprisingly complex and will wait unnecessarily in some cases.
> > 	However, it does preserve current code.)
> 
> Not sure how much mental capacity for API variations we expect from
> people using caches, but I feel like this would score the highest
> on Rusty's API scale. I'd even venture an opinion that it's less
> confusing to require cache users to have their own (trivial) callbacks
> than add API variants we can't error check even at runtime...

Fair point, though please see Jason's emails.

And the underlying within-RCU mechanism is the same either way, so that
API decision can be deferred for some time.

But the within-slab mechanism does have the advantage of also possibly
simplifying reference-counting and the potential upcoming hazard pointers.
On the other hand, I currently have no idea what level of violence this
change would make to the slab subsystem.

							Thanx, Paul