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=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 B4454C433DF for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF482087C for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="vEHF2QGs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726147AbgH0Q42 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:56:28 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52980 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726197AbgH0Q42 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:56:28 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1231::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BF85C061264; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:56:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=SSi0PB6QbtM1yaYhFUwqIMkjIT1n3Q2GuDY4HbN7Kf0=; b=vEHF2QGsi2DpyHej0MA5sep7Ur C1S7/f467o3G2ZmbX8x+/9E5sZAebKOacqzgM8MmipjMRGOOqDFepAB/D0jC5C5MdQqI0GAO41OCI /19RpLSJmY1OZig5zNLCmElzmIPx0bQd/p9QESlVb+JMBBl5BmfuGJ1s0A6ul9tIwaNTwhBR3rtjR nl/eKTc3ih3ot2uYnODMT2fiD1IZw0OOVBqUte38vQwJt451IYELo8Ei6XxJUe0aOWDvFlsiA6OLv VfKkym3Iz3XRrAfHMFaiWjNn+pJMiGjTCIrOYXD7TBoRINzWXRXyxmKZcWJnxXgx4DJRoGQA8CUki xkXwWD2g==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kBLC3-00075E-NI; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:56:07 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15792301A66; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:56:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C21B52C42F07A; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:56:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:56:05 +0200 From: peterz@infradead.org To: Cameron Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com, x86@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, rostedt@goodmis.org, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] freelist: Lock less freelist Message-ID: <20200827165605.GL1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20200827161237.889877377@infradead.org> <20200827161754.535381269@infradead.org> <20200827163755.GK1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:49:20PM -0400, Cameron wrote: > For what it's worth, the freelist.h code seems to be a faithful adaptation > of my original blog post code. Didn't think it would end up in the Linux > kernel one day :-) Hehe, I ran into the traditional ABA problem for the lockless stack and asked google, your blog came up. I'll try and actually think about it a little when the current (virtual) conference is over. Are you Ok with the License I put on it, GPLv2 or BDS-2 ? > I'm just wondering if the assumption that "nodes are never freed until > after the free list is destroyed" will hold true in the intended use case? It does, the nodes are only deleted once the whole freelist object is discarded.