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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > 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
