Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu batching

[Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 09:12:34AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:10:52PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 04:49:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Maybe.  Note well that I said "potential issue".  When I checked a few
> > > years ago, none of the uses of rcu_barrier() cared about kfree_rcu().
> > > They cared instead about call_rcu() callbacks that accessed code or data
> > > that was going to disappear soon, for example, due to module unload or
> > > filesystem unmount.
> > > 
> > > So it -might- be that rcu_barrier() can stay as it is, but with changes
> > > as needed to documentation.
> 
> Right, we should update the docs. Byungchul, do you mind sending a patch that
> documents the rcu_barrier() behavior?

Are you trying to give me the chance? I feel thankful. It doens't matter
to try it at the moment though, I can't follow-up until September. I'd
better do that in Septamber or give it up this time.

Thanks,
Byungchul

> > > It also -might- be, maybe now or maybe some time in the future, that
> > > there will need to be a kfree_rcu_barrier() or some such.  But if so,
> > > let's not create it until it is needed.  For one thing, it is reasonably
> > > likely that something other than a kfree_rcu_barrier() would really
> > > be what was needed.  After all, the main point would be to make sure
> > > that the old memory really was freed before allocating new memory.
> > 
> > Now I fully understand what you meant thanks to you. Thank you for
> > explaining it in detail.
> > 
> > > But if the system had ample memory, why wait?  In that case you don't
> > > really need to wait for all the old memory to be freed, but rather for
> > > sufficient memory to be available for allocation.
> > 
> > Agree. Totally make sense.
> 
> Agreed, all makes sense.
> 
> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> [snip]