On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 03:57:04PM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > We have gotten along fine with only SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU for almost > > five years, so I think we are plenty fine with what we have. So, as > > you say, "as the need arises". > > These were the glory years where SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU was only used for > anonymous vmas. Now Eric has picked it up for the net subsystem. You may > see the RCU use proliferate. > > The kmem_cache_destroy rcu barriers did not matter until > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU spread. Certainly it is true that increased use of RCU has resulted in new requirements, which have in turn led to any number of changes over the years. Are you saying that people have already asked you for additional variants of SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU? If so, please don't keep them a secret! Otherwise, experience indicates that it is best to wait for the new uses, because they usually aren't quite what one might expect. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
