From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752992AbeBGEXt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:23:49 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:59357 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752465AbeBGEXr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:23:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 20:23:34 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rcu: Transform kfree_rcu() into kvfree_rcu()
Message-ID: <20180207042334.GA16175@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <151791170164.5994.8253310844733420079.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180207021703.GC3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180207021703.GC3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 06:17:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> So it is OK to kvmalloc() something and pass it to either kfree() or
> kvfree(), and it had better be OK to kvmalloc() something and pass it
> to kvfree().
> 
> Is it OK to kmalloc() something and pass it to kvfree()?

Yes, it absolutely is.

void kvfree(const void *addr)
{
        if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
                vfree(addr);
        else
                kfree(addr);
}

> If so, is it really useful to have two different names here, that is,
> both kfree_rcu() and kvfree_rcu()?

I think it's handy to have all three of kvfree_rcu(), kfree_rcu() and
vfree_rcu() available in the API for the symmetry of calling kmalloc()
/ kfree_rcu().

Personally, I would like us to rename kvfree() to just free(), and have
malloc(x) be an alias to kvmalloc(x, GFP_KERNEL), but I haven't won that
fight yet.