Re: [PATCH 0/5] kfree_rcu() additions for -rcu

Joel Fernandes
2019-08-28T21:26:58Z

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:46:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:34:58PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:28:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is a series on top of the patch "rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu() batching".
> > > >
> > > > Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20190814160411.58591-1-joel@joelfernandes.org
> > > >
> > > > It adds performance tests, some clean ups and removal of "lazy" RCU callbacks.
> > > >
> > > > Now that kfree_rcu() is handled separately from call_rcu(), we also get rid of
> > > > kfree "lazy" handling from tree RCU as suggested by Paul which will be unused.
> > > > This also results in a nice negative delta as well.
> > > >
> > > > Joel Fernandes (Google) (5):
> > > > rcu/rcuperf: Add kfree_rcu() performance Tests
> > > > rcu/tree: Add multiple in-flight batches of kfree_rcu work
> > > > rcu/tree: Add support for debug_objects debugging for kfree_rcu()
> > > > rcu: Remove kfree_rcu() special casing and lazy handling
> > > > rcu: Remove kfree_call_rcu_nobatch()
> > > >
> > > > Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.txt | 13 +-
> > > > .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 13 ++
> > > > include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h | 2 -
> > > > include/linux/rcutiny.h | 5 -
> > > > include/linux/rcutree.h | 1 -
> > > > include/trace/events/rcu.h | 32 ++--
> > > > kernel/rcu/rcu.h | 27 ---
> > > > kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c | 25 +--
> > > > kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.h | 25 +--
> > > > kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 173 +++++++++++++++++-
> > > > kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 4 +-
> > > > kernel/rcu/tiny.c | 29 ++-
> > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 145 ++++++++++-----
> > > > kernel/rcu/tree.h | 1 -
> > > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 42 +----
> > > > kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h | 6 +-
> > > > 16 files changed, 337 insertions(+), 206 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Looks like a 131-line positive delta to me. ;-)
> >
> > Not if you overlook the rcuperf changes which is just test code. :-D ;-)
>
> Which suggests that you should move the "nice negative delta" comment
> to the commits that actually have nice negative deltas. ;-)

Will do!

thanks,

- Joel