From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266174AbUFPFtv (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:49:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266176AbUFPFtv (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:49:51 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:47823 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266174AbUFPFtu (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:49:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:16:04 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: Andrew Morton Cc: Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] reduce rcu_head size [0/2] Message-ID: <20040616054604.GA3658@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This was originally proposed by Rusty. I have it in two patches for a reason - rcu-no-arg changes the call_rcu() api and if it is too late in 2.6 to introduce it, we could still do some shrinking by applying the singly-linked-rcu patch. Other than the documented changes, there is no subtle semantics change - rcus are still invoked in the same order. Andrew, this will probably break manfred's patches, but 512-cpu scalability can probably wait a little until I get around to analyze those (my next task in hand) :) I have tested the patches lightly on an x86 box. Thanks Dipankar