From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A0FC10DCE for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:21:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6FC206BE for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:21:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="CVHZ8b2A" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726628AbgCMNVl (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:21:41 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f170.google.com ([209.85.208.170]:33554 "EHLO mail-lj1-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726426AbgCMNVl (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:21:41 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f170.google.com with SMTP id f13so10507718ljp.0 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:21:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zrL7Wp9sw7b39Ni79r7pQA3So53CVf6g/dnqjQzpaxs=; b=CVHZ8b2AvAigIgE7nsCXD8x07EZhxtrbWA9+8IISqR6zab8xsmFEeIZgLIO79t/YGr vJqxxIRl6kmR24CApDJdPmLG3K3aZILhNrzbiWRdS1gxmyu5fyGtaM6fHRlsj3UzAcij fKcYtnsq2pXiKXBT6gYdIq0PsxoLbHW5JevIEUDMCegYeseCLeYaUA7sSft26RolgZ2n 4i8AnDCRnLGFcLlsvHEi7cREqNECTEF32etcfbEwmx7B69PGmZhbiyjTMWqv2qw2++Cr JV5C2Wxc+haQuy2lfUORtbs24g6+4Co8qrD3+SaoPOQiL4W2b15ZfwBaGH2TchO3yGwg HRbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zrL7Wp9sw7b39Ni79r7pQA3So53CVf6g/dnqjQzpaxs=; b=YkcQPjWmyeV9pp78WlXNm3J2pOOty95SgGF9XQ2NuYmT6rmkVXF8ldBqXiuuzKu44R WPM1JE/tCdkZ3WZGGLVCOVTdNDCAdQ114ts9mKrLX+6ozW4kvC5vpG9+pLh/VlcR3jFx GC3/TewMUhONEf4uNqN1O5lbQHPUu81aXZb0OtewCY0mr1vj/KAPNPDfC0FTJ6dbkdIS c5S4P3mwJqFr12b5FpCsX1KRn0Bd+KSzCCrggImE+7UF4R0i+zeR7K9FbdJw0xcDOaoI RIV2fUnheHM1amVlIsEZOVxsOPxj0som+rgbNJiAxWg8+2pvJba6aOImUECTz61ppdI7 T2PQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1VhXLFPCTAKWV2Nf6CzdqvjgTrtVccPDNXTwVY5Ivqozd9y/6b eIk2+5BtuLsRBg2E1A6wbIM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsynE0V2tMWR2T+fc0dVdkAn8c6XGGEqHVWmL2zFTL+gbHM7WKjuc/oIztAIau1kL7h2QCrJw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:50a:: with SMTP id o10mr1052834ljp.163.1584105698854; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (h5ef52e31.seluork.dyn.perspektivbredband.net. [94.245.46.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z18sm24767064ljm.15.2020.03.13.06.21.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:21:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:21:24 +0100 To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , "Paul E. McKenney" , "joel@joelfernandes.org George Spelvin" , rcu@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com Subject: Re: Is there a reason we don't have kvfree_rcu()? Message-ID: <20200313132124.GA28457@pc636> References: <20200312162730.GB11889@SDF.ORG> <20200312181138.GI3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200312191009.GA27429@pc636> <20200313035809.GC190951@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200313035809.GC190951@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:58:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 08:10:09PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:11:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 04:27:30PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: > > > > kvfree() is a superset of kfree(), so there's nothing obvious stopping > > > > kfree_rcu() from simply changing to kvfree() and everything will keep > > > > working. > > > > > > > > I'd probably add a kvfree_rcu() alias, just for documentation's sake and > > > > to make code that depends on the new feature explode at compile time, but > > > > it could be identical behind the scenes. > > > > > > > > There's an existing user in mm/list_lru.c already. > > > > > > > > I was just thinking of using kvmalloc() in a module, and realized that the > > > > lack of a core kvfree_rcu() helper meant I'd have to synchronize_rcu() on > > > > module unload. > > > > > > There was a recent proposal to do just that, but current patches in -rcu > > > use kfree_bulk(). It doesn't look to me that this works for kfvree() > > > under the covers in its current form. Could it be upgraded to handle > > > this case? > > > > > > Adding Vlad on CC for his thoughts. > > > > > Paul, see below my view: > > > > Answering to topic's question it looks like we need kvfree_rcu() support :) > > > > It is easy to add it actually. But if we are talking about the case when > > an object has rcu_head inside. From the other hand recent discussion showed > > that we would like to have head-less variant of the kvfree_rcu() functionality: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/18/566 > > > > for example, as Ted pointed, he would go with head-less case(for ext4) only. > > The reason is nobody wants to modify internal structures injecting rcu_head > > there. Also there are many other places in the kernel where it would be good > > to have kfree_rcu() head-less variant as well. > > > > I spent some time implementing it together with Joel. It is ready from my > > side but only for RCU-tree case. Next step is RCU-tiny support, so i am > > working on it. > > > > I can send out an RFC for RCU-tree only support, so we can discuss it > > and agree on how to move forward. After that i or Joel or together can > > update RCU-tine. > > > > Joel: What do you think? > > Yes, your sending an RFC with what you have sounds good. I can prepare a tree > for both of us then and we can develop on that. I was actually waiting on > your patches so I can add more on top. > OK. Let's setup something. Currently i am working based on dev.2020.02.16a branch. If you can, please do it and let me know so we can avoid of conflicts. > One more thing I want to add is the shrinker interface to prevent OOM during > kfree_rcu() flood. I sent patches to fix that. It works well. We can prepare > a tree with all these features and develop on that so there's no conflict. > > For -tiny and lack of rcu_head, I think we discussed that we would > always dynamically allocate rcu_head for that case. > We can do dynamic attaching. Later on, i think we can implement "arrays" logic like we do for RCU-tree but without any batching. Simple array pointer store mechanism for head-less case. > > Another thought. We can add kvfree_rcu(ptr, rcu) first, because it is > > easy and after that implement head-less case. > > Yes, that is also fine. We can start simple and then keep improving it. I > think we have now 3 users who want head-less interface so ultimately we can > shoot for that goal (at later stage). > OK. Then, i think i will make kvfree_rcu(ptr, rcu) interface and all the rest on top. -- Vlad Rezki