On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 3:01 PM Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/13/24 13:55, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x) has additional checks > > to make sure the object @x was allocated > > from the @s kmem_cache. > > > > Look for SLAB_CONSISTENCY_CHECKS and CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED > > Yes. Using kfree_rcu() bypasses these (optional) debugging/consistency > checks. > > > Your patch is not 'trivial' as you think. > > You're shifting from "not going to work" to "not trivial" so nicely. You used the word "trivial" in the changelog, not me. > > > Otherwise, we will soon have dozen of patches submissions replacing > > kmem_cache_free() with kfree() > > No. The question is about freeing on some (where the freeing callback > function is trivial) RCU-protected paths only. > I am saying no to this patch.
