In message <20021029013059.A13287@dikhow> you write:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> I am pathologically late in catching up lkml, so if I missed some
> context here, I apologize in advance. I have just started looking
> at mm6 ipc code and I want to point out a few things.
That's OK, I'm still 1500 behind 8(
If all current uses are embedded, can we remove the "void
*arg" and reduce the size of struct rcu_head by 25%? Users can always
embed it in their own struct which has a "void *arg", but if that's
the uncommon case, it'd be nice to slim it a little.
It'd also be nice to change the double linked list to a single
too: as far as I can tell the only issue is the list_add_tail in
call_rcu(): how important is this ordering? It can be done by keeping
a head as well as a tail pointer if required.
I'd be happy to prepare a patch, to avoid more complaints of bloat 8)
> That said, it seems that Ming/Hugh's patch does allocate
> the rcu_head at the time of *growing* the array. It is just
> that they allocate it for the freeing array rather than the
> allocated array. I don't see how this is semantically different
> from clubbing the two allocations other than the fact that
> smaller number of allocation calls would likely reduce the
> likelyhood of allocation failures.
We must be looking at different variants of the patch. This one does:
IPC_RMID -> freeary() -> ipc_rcu_free -> kmalloc.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:40 EST