Re: [v8 PATCH 05/13] mm: vmscan: use kvfree_rcu instead of call_rcu

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:54 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:13:04PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:13 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Using kvfree_rcu() to free the old shrinker_maps instead of call_rcu().
> > > We don't have to define a dedicated callback for call_rcu() anymore.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/vmscan.c | 7 +------
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 2e753c2516fa..c2a309acd86b 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -192,11 +192,6 @@ static inline int shrinker_map_size(int nr_items)
> > >         return (DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_items, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long));
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -static void free_shrinker_map_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > -{
> > > -       kvfree(container_of(head, struct memcg_shrinker_map, rcu));
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  static int expand_one_shrinker_map(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > >                                    int size, int old_size)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -219,7 +214,7 @@ static int expand_one_shrinker_map(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > >                 memset((void *)new->map + old_size, 0, size - old_size);
> > >
> > >                 rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_map, new);
> > > -               call_rcu(&old->rcu, free_shrinker_map_rcu);
> > > +               kvfree_rcu(old);
> >
> > Please use kvfree_rcu(old, rcu) instead of kvfree_rcu(old). The single
> > param can call synchronize_rcu().
>
> Especially given that you already have the ->rcu field that the
> two-argument form requires.
>
> The reason for using the single-argument form is when you have lots of
> little data structures, such that getting rid of that rcu_head structure
> is valuable enough to be worth the occasional call to synchronize_rcu().
> However, please note that this call to synchronize_rcu() happens only
> under OOM conditions.

Thanks, Shakeel and Paul. I didn't realize the difference. Will use
the two params form in the new version.

>
>                                                         Thanx, Paul



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux