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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC590C433EF for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 16:33:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245161AbiELQdE (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2022 12:33:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35570 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344930AbiELQdD (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2022 12:33:03 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F0B163537 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 09:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id m23so7235711ljc.0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 09:33:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=BOo09dhGk8rskBSDHqqTQOmoarLAEV7HKUbTO2PBarc=; b=ap3whFfmLpIHv+gMyyZ70VyhHFdosgQWbLgIwHxsB6eq0yWubHa5Li3VcQ8t4BTthb cppy7FeGfCqxfE0cPMRiMmk49285c1J/dA8Ri0Jz3wnnY89tMwmsr2MfOGOHICHFAaoR ulQK+r8AAxRuMt25EKqSbO7LkB5mD8Ky8i5fy8gBJez8YqU516dZfX9fLg5zAEu5nMM5 4Lv6uFru7Pt8ddLlT/ULHFJJLkIELJ8YBIHGuEQnSqly4zLdG8f4yNfuIhLP/hxzlq2y W9B0dWRkh3E6TXUNfyAmPbO6atMtNRoDimT+053sfBYvOFxzjGqVEaOe6imSiJxo8NpE hhnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=BOo09dhGk8rskBSDHqqTQOmoarLAEV7HKUbTO2PBarc=; b=ex114ZrEComHfv7jRubx+jly9+9+w2ThBE3WzVYjXsGkHV8zaNaM/8AEm95F5zfnDW ismdQ0XM4mARMRWGrokhR0OXUSRVVfthM6cqpr0ISlnNoZLXfVtLUTv27lKHo6h7NHgc UED23WH1SrQnoA29Wsgc1PJmkfawyGDEfrfZ4can0d0IVFlqhfmewJERKk6iUsnfwZDg UzPi0L4tPLRIsNgkzEPWXFNFv8AoXFnzAUG41e8kU/wz67pyj9/VXF9RPp1MJc+bBthQ pWjMVJRLBa4OScMzei0mb86CG/48C/J4aowZVPah3Ajg70znkBuba5kjupvduy0Uwg/x uB7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330WGk6HhMJxGsjgzGkvA+kk0o9Ujjnp7KuBVbow4sjbW3KtQMp am6PsBIYTrR7h3dEREInG2I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwaZM3We/Dikx9leaCQtX9wI6KdbshtWWSDrSjaQS6MdMrK8I78dNYi8wyJ3KN7DTAZd616gA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a585:0:b0:24f:528f:3621 with SMTP id m5-20020a2ea585000000b0024f528f3621mr522301ljp.416.1652373180673; Thu, 12 May 2022 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc638.lan ([155.137.26.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f8-20020ac24e48000000b0047255d210e5sm10301lfr.20.2022.05.12.09.32.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 May 2022 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 18:32:58 +0200 To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , rcu , Rushikesh S Kadam , Neeraj upadhyay , Frederic Weisbecker , "Paul E. McKenney" , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [RFC v1 00/14] Implement call_rcu_lazy() and miscellaneous fixes Message-ID: References: <20220512030442.2530552-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:37 AM Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 03:56:37PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > Never mind. I port it into 5.10 > > > > > > Oh, this is on mainline. Sorry about that. If you want I have a tree here for > > > 5.10 , although that does not have the kfree changes, everything else is > > > ditto. > > > https://github.com/joelagnel/linux-kernel/tree/rcu-nocb-4 > > > > > No problem. kfree_rcu two patches are not so important in this series. > > So i have backported them into my 5.10 kernel because the latest kernel > > is not so easy to up and run on my device :) > > Actually I was going to write here, apparently some tests are showing > kfree_rcu()->call_rcu_lazy() causing possible regression. So it is > good to drop those for your initial testing! > Yep, i dropped both. The one that make use of call_rcu_lazy() seems not so important for kfree_rcu() because we do batch requests there anyway. One thing that i would like to improve in kfree_rcu() is a better utilization of page slots. I will share my results either tomorrow or on Monday. I hope that is fine. -- Uladzislau Rezki