Received: by 2002:a25:8b12:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i18csp4153521ybl; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:45:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZ8OVEJjXqFUt9l1S78t3d6J7io617tJ1bU1UKVHVQXysRQY2AAURr1LZxVe82mBK1I/iO X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a8:: with SMTP id a37mr12968095pla.316.1566312340842; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:45:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1566312340; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=PMXc04VsTCiESwur2gn+/37tDsx5GztQwfCt1VthDG7F9Eckm8wp9gQx62wih4VUyc LXbbWaNrruHawKv/0owDALX3dLcI7F/ntFLKFmZB+77ZSwguBRZt6U/xZBDFWRpWmHQp 7p4grmQCOgGaSmtb2EaMo6lVJqajNeDc6lod473QGOQvl8nck4J83HH1SHUJgRxfq6sr uZ7NB6/AksyJwhT4Yn+SpllIyHb3sT0nCAa9eNai/ATfEpjPpBg9mCZ2k1yWo3KIYI71 bk4IhisNiB1+hruspgRZPQjhWAyqmBetGzlhce/A6OfTkxF4gyZh72GUkT9BUIT6Z/+P luEg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=z7sqi5zq6HoXb04mJ8GN0A11t8mIJeJ2DBMdqG4A968=; b=NYCEmIZ4YxLsgqXmrxJHA5GM5AbcD1PLD++7XrH3VSXiJgbM1Ibr7Bn8quhVF6EGXx 9ubAYuppZoFCU+5DdC3CyOlWyqaWExPY4GEMUO4jJAuRnizgE60FMhoMPkeDopsU1Yb+ UA3mYAlc86GDHrLtASqNSduJIcukDR8TDKh0DI4kLreieoY7VO4iGLplhKuruqZyxWuE At+3ZskwPlVnr0GnIWU4MtNvvVRFrT745Q2+RFgNPHbN7TwAk16EkaWWxOhFCvwgbgX8 Z11SfWWLA2DCGRm14ggOG9AWKkQQKa5gKbzODwEYAZ7rm/Z0rF2M09Ask2Jnbx7Vniaf 2Ydw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c22si12227997plo.375.2019.08.20.07.45.24; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:45:40 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730040AbfHTOoT (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:44:19 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:18826 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729810AbfHTOoT (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:44:19 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7KEXrV3127343; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:44:13 -0400 Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ugh4mx4kn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:44:10 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7KETxDJ025305; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:44:07 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.29]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2ue9768dvk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:44:07 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7KEi68C49414526 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:44:06 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4FCB2066; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:44:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403E4B2065; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:44:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.154]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:44:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1910216C388E; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:44:07 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu dev 1/3] rcu/tree: tick_dep_set/clear_cpu should accept bits instead of masks Message-ID: <20190820144407.GM28441@linux.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190816025311.241257-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190819123837.GC27088@lenoir> <20190819144632.GW28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190819163226.GE27088@lenoir> <20190819164420.GA28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190820120843.GA2093@lenoir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190820120843.GA2093@lenoir> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-08-20_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908200145 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:08:45PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 06:32:27PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > But would the following patch make sense? This would not help for (say) > > > > use of TICK_MASK_BIT_POSIX_TIMER instead of TICK_DEP_BIT_POSIX_TIMER, but > > > > would help for any new values that might be added later on. And currently > > > > for TICK_DEP_MASK_CLOCK_UNSTABLE and TICK_DEP_MASK_RCU. > > > > > > I'd rather make the TICK_DEP_MASK_* values private to kernel/time/tick-sched.c but > > > that means I need to re-arrange a bit include/trace/events/timer.h > > > > That would be even better! For one thing, it would detect misuse of > > -all- of the _MASK_ values. ;-) > > :o) > > > > > > I'm looking into it. Meanwhile, your below patch that checks for the max value is > > > still valuable. > > > > If I were to push it, it would be v5.5 before it showed up. My guess > > is therefore that I should keep it for my own internal use in the near > > term, but not push it. If you would like to take it, feel free to use > > my Signed-off-by. > > Ok, applying. Thank you, Frederic! Thanx, Paul