On 11/14/24 17:57, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 05:38:46PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c >> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ >> #include <linux/kasan.h> >> #include <linux/context_tracking.h> >> #include "../time/tick-internal.h" >> +#include "../../mm/slab.h" >> >> #include "tree.h" >> #include "rcu.h" >> @@ -3420,7 +3421,7 @@ kvfree_rcu_list(struct rcu_head *head) >> trace_rcu_invoke_kvfree_callback(rcu_state.name, head, offset); >> >> if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!__is_kvfree_rcu_offset(offset))) >> - kvfree(ptr); >> + __kvfree_rcu(ptr); >> >> rcu_lock_release(&rcu_callback_map); >> cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs(); >> @@ -3797,6 +3798,9 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, void *ptr) >> if (!head) >> might_sleep(); >> >> + if (kfree_rcu_sheaf(ptr)) >> + return; >> + >> > This change crosses all effort which has been done in order to improve kvfree_rcu :) Yeah I know, but it wasn't intended to make it all obsolete as I don't think every kfree_rcu() user would have a sheaf-enabled cache. > For example: > performance, app launch improvements for Android devices; > memory consumption optimizations to minimize LMK triggering; > batching to speed-up offloading; > etc. Yes it's a great effort that I appreciate and you did probably all that was possible to do without changing the slab allocator itself. > So we have done a lot of work there. We were thinking about moving all > functionality from "kernel/rcu" to "mm/". As a first step i can do that, > i.e. move kvfree_rcu() as is. After that we can switch to second step. Yeah we have discussed that with Paul at LSF/MM as well and I agreed it makes sense, but didn't get to it yet. > Sounds good for you or not? Sounds good, thanks! > -- > Uladzislau Rezki
