On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 04:55:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 12/16/24 16:41, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 03:20:44PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > >> On 12/16/24 12:03, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > >> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > >> >> On 12/12/24 19:02, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > > >> >> > Hello! > > >> >> > > > >> >> > This is v2. It is based on the Linux 6.13-rc2. The first version is > > >> >> > here: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20241210164035.3391747-4-urezki@xxxxxxxxx/T/ > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The difference between v1 and v2 is that, the preparation process is > > >> >> > done in original place instead and after that there is one final move. > > >> >> > > >> >> Looks good, will include in slab/for-next > > >> >> > > >> >> I think patch 5 should add more explanation to the commit message - the > > >> >> subthread started by Christoph could provide content :) Can you summarize so > > >> >> I can amend the commit log? > > >> >> > > >> > I will :) > > >> > > > >> >> Also how about a followup patch moving the rcu-tiny implementation of > > >> >> kvfree_call_rcu()? > > >> >> > > >> > As, Paul already noted, it would make sense. Or just remove a tiny > > >> > implementation. > > >> > > >> AFAICS tiny rcu is for !SMP systems. Do they benefit from the "full" > > >> implementation with all the batching etc or would that be unnecessary overhead? > > >> > > > Yes, it is for a really small systems with low amount of memory. I see > > > only one overhead it is about driving objects in pages. For a small > > > system it can be critical because we allocate. > > > > > > From the other hand, for a tiny variant we can modify the normal variant > > > by bypassing batching logic, thus do not consume memory(for Tiny case) > > > i.e. merge it to a normal kvfree_rcu() path. > > > > Maybe we could change it to use CONFIG_SLUB_TINY as that has similar use > > case (less memory usage on low memory system, tradeoff for worse performance). > > > Yep, i also was thinking about that without saying it :) Works for me as well! Thanx, Paul
