From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f197.google.com (mail-qk0-f197.google.com [209.85.220.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CF46B000C for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 23:10:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-f197.google.com with SMTP id z64so2713060qka.23 for ; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 20:10:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.158.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y187si502684qkc.309.2018.02.07.20.10.34 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Feb 2018 20:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w1849S1F096797 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 23:10:34 -0500 Received: from e19.ny.us.ibm.com (e19.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.209]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g09d93vxh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:10:34 -0500 Received: from localhost by e19.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 23:10:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 20:10:39 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Transform kfree_rcu() into kvfree_rcu() Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <151791170164.5994.8253310844733420079.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180207021703.GC3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180207042334.GA16175@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180207050200.GH3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180207083104.GK3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180207085700.393f90d0@gandalf.local.home> <20180207174513.5cc9b503@redhat.com> <20180207181055.GB12446@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180207132619.6595e4a9@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180207132619.6595e4a9@gandalf.local.home> Message-Id: <20180208041039.GR3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Kirill Tkhai , josh@joshtriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rao.shoaib@oracle.com On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:10:55 -0800 > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > For the record, I fully agree with Steve here. > > Thanks, but... > > > > > > > And being a performance "fanatic" I don't like to have the extra branch > > > (and compares) in the free code path... but it's a MM-decision (and > > > sometimes you should not listen to "fanatics" ;-)) > > > > While free_rcu() is not withut its performance requirements, I think it's > > currently dominated by cache misses and not by branches. By the time RCU > > gets to run callbacks, memory is certainly L1/L2 cache-cold and probably > > L3 cache-cold. Also calling the callback functions is utterly impossible > > for the branch predictor. > > I agree with Matthew. > > This is far from any fast path. A few extra branches isn't going to > hurt anything here as it's mostly just garbage collection. With or > without the Spectre fixes. What Steve said! Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org