On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 07:48:22PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 08:24:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: [..] > > > > Presumably the list can also be accessed without holding this lock, > > > > because otherwise we shouldn't need llist... > > > > > > > Hm... We increase the number of elements in cache, therefore it is not > > > lockless. From the other hand i used llist_head to maintain the cache > > > because it is single linked list, we do not need "*prev" link. Also > > > we do not need to init the list. > > > > > > But i can change it to list_head. Please let me know if i need :) > > > > Hmmm... Maybe it is time for a non-atomic singly linked list? In the RCU > > callback processing, the operations were open-coded, but they have been > > pushed into include/linux/rcu_segcblist.h and kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.*. > > > > Maybe some non-atomic/protected/whatever macros in the llist.h file? > > Or maybe just open-code the singly linked list? (Probably not the > > best choice, though.) Add comments stating that the atomic properties > > of the llist functions aren't neded? Something else? > > > In order to keep it simple i can replace llist_head by the list_head? Just to clarify for me, what is the disadvantage of using llist here? Since we don't care about traversing backwards, isn't it better to use llist for this usecase? I think Vlad is using locking as we're also tracking the size of the llist to know when to free pages. This tracking could suffer from the lost-update problem without any locking, 2 lockless llist_add happened simulatenously. Also if list_head is used, it will take more space and still use locking. Thoughts? thanks, - Joel > > > > The comments would be a good start. Just to take pity on people seeing > > the potential for concurrency and wondering how the concurrent accesses > > actually happen. ;-) > > > Sounds like you are kidding me :) > > -- > Vlad Rezki
