Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:48:55 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, joel.opensrc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/22] rcu: Rename cond_resched_rcu_qs() to
 cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs()
Message-ID: <20180423124855.GZ4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180423023150.GA21533@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1524450747-22778-6-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180423085347.GS4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180423123223.GK26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180423123223.GK26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:32:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:53:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 07:32:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Commit e31d28b6ab8f ("trace: Eliminate cond_resched_rcu_qs() in favor
> > > of cond_resched()") substituted cond_resched() for the earlier call
> > > to cond_resched_rcu_qs().  However, the new-age cond_resched() does
> > > not do anything to help RCU-tasks grace periods because (1) RCU-tasks
> > > is only enabled when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y and (2) cond_resched() is a
> > > complete no-op when preemption is enabled.  This situation results
> > > in hangs when running the trace benchmarks.
> > 
> > But a few patches earlier you tried to address that..
> 
> Yes.  And all this patch does is change the name to better match
> what this primitive actually does.
> 
> I could merge the two patches, if that would help.

I understood the earlier patch was actually changing cond_resched() to
also work for task-rcu; which resulted in it acually not being a no-op
for PREEMPT anymore.

But then here you say it doesn't because it's a no-op.

It's not about the rename.. It is about one patch changing PREEMPT
cond_resched to not be a no-op and you here justifying things because
PREEMPT cond_resched it a no-op.