Re: [PATCH 19/24] rcu/tree: Support reclaim for head-less object

[Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>]

> > > 
> > > If we are not doing single-pointer allocation, then that would also eliminate
> > > entering the low-level page allocator for single-pointer allocations.
> > > 
> > > Or did you mean entry into the allocator for the full-page allocations
> > > related to the pointer array for PREEMPT_RT? Even if we skip entry into the
> > > allocator for those, we will still have additional caching which further
> > > reduces chances of getting a full page. In the event of such failure, we can
> > > simply queue the rcu_head.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > I was just trying to guess why you kept the single-pointer allocation.
> > It looks like I guessed wrong.  ;-)
> > 
> > If, as you say above, you make it go straight to synchronize_rcu()
> > upon full-page allocation failure, that would be good!
> 
> Paul, sounds good. Vlad, are you also Ok with that?
> 
OK, let's drop it and keep it simple :)

BTW, for PREEMPT_RT we still can do a page allocation for single
argument of kvfree_rcu(). In case of double we just revert everything
to the rcu_head if no cache.

For single argument we can drop the lock before the entry to the page
allocator. Because it follows might_sleep() anotation we avoid of having
a situation when spinlock(rt mutex) is taken from any atomic context.

Since the lock is dropped the current context can be interrupted by
an IRQ which in its turn can also call kvfree_rcu() on current CPU.
In that case it must be double argument(single is not allowed) kvfree_rcu()
call. For PREEMPT_RT if no cache everything is reverted to rcu_head usage,
i.e. the entry to page allocator is bypassed.

It can be addressed as a separate patch and send out later on if we
are on the same page.

Paul, Joel what are your opinions?

--
Vlad Rezki