Re: call_rcu from trace_preempt

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On 6/16/15 10:37 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > +			kfree(l);
> > >
> > >that's not right, since such thread defeats rcu protection of lookup.
> > >We need either kfree_rcu/call_rcu or synchronize_rcu.
> > >Obviously the former is preferred that's why I'm still digging into it.
> > >Probably a thread that does kfree_rcu would be ok, but we shouldn't
> > >be doing it unconditionally. For all networking programs and 99%
> > >of tracing programs the existing code is fine and I don't want to
> > >slow it down to tackle the corner case.
> > >Extra spin_lock just to add it to the list is also quite costly.
> Use a irq_work() handler to do the kfree_rcu(), and use llist (lockless
> list) to add items to the list.

have been studying irq_work and llist... it will work, but it's quite
costly too. Every kfree_rcu will be replaced with irq_work_queue(),
which is irq_work_claim() with one lock_cmpxchg plus another
lock_cmpxchg in llist_add, plus another lock_cmpxchg for our own llist
of 'to be kfree_rcu-ed htab elements'. That's a lot.
The must be better solution. Need to explore more.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/