Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Move kvfree_rcu() into SLAB (v2)

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

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@gmail.com/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