From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f70.google.com (mail-pg0-f70.google.com [74.125.83.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47496B0335 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 11:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg0-f70.google.com with SMTP id b4so511152pgs.5 for ; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 08:34:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org. [198.145.29.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q11si1135605pgc.165.2018.02.07.08.34.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Feb 2018 08:34:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 11:34:16 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Transform kfree_rcu() into kvfree_rcu() Message-ID: <20180207113416.33b6247b@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180207161846.GA902@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <151791170164.5994.8253310844733420079.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180207021703.GC3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180207042334.GA16175@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180207050200.GH3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180207083104.GK3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180207085700.393f90d0@gandalf.local.home> <20180207161846.GA902@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Kirill Tkhai , josh@joshtriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, brouer@redhat.com, rao.shoaib@oracle.com On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 08:18:46 -0800 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Do we need to be able to free any of those objects in order to rename > kfree_rcu() to just free_rcu()? I'm just nervous about tightly coupling free_rcu() with all the *free() from the memory management system. I've been burnt in the past by doing such things. What's the down side of having a way of matching *free_rcu() with all the *free()s? I think it's easier to understand, and rcu doesn't need to worry about changes of *free() code. To me: kfree_rcu(x); is just a quick way of doing 'kfree(x)' after a synchronize_rcu() call. But a "free_rcu(x)", is something I have to think about, because I don't know from the name exactly what it is doing. I know this may sound a bit bike shedding, but the less I need to think about how other sub systems work, the easier it is to concentrate on my own sub system. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org