All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: fushuai.wang@linux.dev
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev, Jason@zx2c4.com,
	wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, wangfushuai@baidu.com
Subject: Re: [net-next,v3] wireguard: allowedips: Use kfree_rcu() instead of call_rcu()
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 19:32:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260115033237.1545400-1-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260112130633.25563-1-fushuai.wang@linux.dev>

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least pausible.

For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
---
wireguard: allowedips: Use kfree_rcu() instead of call_rcu()

This commit replaces call_rcu() with a custom kmem_cache_free() callback
with kfree_rcu() to simplify the code. The change affects how nodes are
freed in the remove_node() function.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c b/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c
> index 09f7fcd7da78..5ece9acad64d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c
> @@ -48,11 +48,6 @@ static void push_rcu(struct allowedips_node **stack,
>  	}
>  }
>
> -static void node_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> -{
> -	kmem_cache_free(node_cache, container_of(rcu, struct allowedips_node, rcu));
> -}
> -

[ ... ]

> @@ -271,13 +266,13 @@ static void remove_node(struct allowedips_node *node, struct mutex *lock)
>  	if (free_parent)
>  		child = rcu_dereference_protected(parent->bit[!(node->parent_bit_packed & 1)],
>  						  lockdep_is_held(lock));
> -	call_rcu(&node->rcu, node_free_rcu);
> +	kfree_rcu(node, rcu);

Does wg_allowedips_slab_uninit() need to be updated to use
kvfree_rcu_barrier() instead of rcu_barrier()?

When CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED is enabled (the default), kfree_rcu()
uses a batched mechanism that queues work via queue_rcu_work(). The
rcu_barrier() call waits for RCU callbacks to complete, but these
callbacks only queue the actual free to a workqueue via rcu_work_rcufn().
The workqueue work that calls kvfree() may still be pending after
rcu_barrier() returns.

The existing cleanup path is:
  wg_allowedips_slab_uninit() -> rcu_barrier() -> kmem_cache_destroy()

With kfree_rcu(), this sequence could destroy the slab cache while
kfree_rcu_work() still has pending frees queued. The proper barrier for
kfree_rcu() is kvfree_rcu_barrier() which also calls flush_rcu_work()
on all pending batches.

>  	if (!free_parent)
>  		return;
>  	if (child)
>  		child->parent_bit_packed = parent->parent_bit_packed;
>  	*(struct allowedips_node **)(parent->parent_bit_packed & ~3UL) = child;
> -	call_rcu(&parent->rcu, node_free_rcu);
> +	kfree_rcu(parent, rcu);
>  }
-- 
pw-bot: cr

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: fushuai.wang@linux.dev
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev, Jason@zx2c4.com,
	wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com, wangfushuai@baidu.com
Subject: Re: [net-next, v3] wireguard: allowedips: Use kfree_rcu() instead of call_rcu()
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 19:32:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260115033237.1545400-1-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260112130633.25563-1-fushuai.wang@linux.dev>

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least pausible.

For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
---
wireguard: allowedips: Use kfree_rcu() instead of call_rcu()

This commit replaces call_rcu() with a custom kmem_cache_free() callback
with kfree_rcu() to simplify the code. The change affects how nodes are
freed in the remove_node() function.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c b/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c
> index 09f7fcd7da78..5ece9acad64d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/allowedips.c
> @@ -48,11 +48,6 @@ static void push_rcu(struct allowedips_node **stack,
>  	}
>  }
>
> -static void node_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> -{
> -	kmem_cache_free(node_cache, container_of(rcu, struct allowedips_node, rcu));
> -}
> -

[ ... ]

> @@ -271,13 +266,13 @@ static void remove_node(struct allowedips_node *node, struct mutex *lock)
>  	if (free_parent)
>  		child = rcu_dereference_protected(parent->bit[!(node->parent_bit_packed & 1)],
>  						  lockdep_is_held(lock));
> -	call_rcu(&node->rcu, node_free_rcu);
> +	kfree_rcu(node, rcu);

Does wg_allowedips_slab_uninit() need to be updated to use
kvfree_rcu_barrier() instead of rcu_barrier()?

When CONFIG_KVFREE_RCU_BATCHED is enabled (the default), kfree_rcu()
uses a batched mechanism that queues work via queue_rcu_work(). The
rcu_barrier() call waits for RCU callbacks to complete, but these
callbacks only queue the actual free to a workqueue via rcu_work_rcufn().
The workqueue work that calls kvfree() may still be pending after
rcu_barrier() returns.

The existing cleanup path is:
  wg_allowedips_slab_uninit() -> rcu_barrier() -> kmem_cache_destroy()

With kfree_rcu(), this sequence could destroy the slab cache while
kfree_rcu_work() still has pending frees queued. The proper barrier for
kfree_rcu() is kvfree_rcu_barrier() which also calls flush_rcu_work()
on all pending batches.

>  	if (!free_parent)
>  		return;
>  	if (child)
>  		child->parent_bit_packed = parent->parent_bit_packed;
>  	*(struct allowedips_node **)(parent->parent_bit_packed & ~3UL) = child;
> -	call_rcu(&parent->rcu, node_free_rcu);
> +	kfree_rcu(parent, rcu);
>  }
-- 
pw-bot: cr

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-01-15  3:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-12 13:06 [PATCH net-next v3] wireguard: allowedips: Use kfree_rcu() instead of call_rcu() Fushuai Wang
2026-01-14 15:41 ` Simon Horman
2026-01-15  3:32 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-01-15  3:32   ` [net-next, " Jakub Kicinski
2026-01-15  5:12   ` [PATCH net-next " Fushuai Wang
2026-01-15  9:15     ` Eric Dumazet
2026-01-15 14:33       ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2026-01-15 14:40         ` Eric Dumazet
2026-01-22 23:30           ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2026-01-15  8:12   ` [net-next, " Petr Vaněk
2026-01-15 14:26     ` Jakub Kicinski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260115033237.1545400-1-kuba@kernel.org \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fushuai.wang@linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev \
    --cc=wangfushuai@baidu.com \
    --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.