Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 21:32:24 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] rcu: Directly lock rdp->nocb_lock on nocb code
 entrypoints
Message-ID: <20200611013224.GA9005@google.com>
References: <20200520122949.GB16672@google.com>
 <20200522175739.GM2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200604114121.GA26398@lenoir>
 <20200604163655.GC29598@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200608125715.GA30920@lenoir>
 <20200609180227.GR4455@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200610131238.GA26639@lenoir>
 <20200610140210.GT4455@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200610221245.GA3833@lenoir>
 <20200610232142.GA4455@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200610232142.GA4455@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:21:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> > > 8.	To softirq 3.  Either GP or CB kthread for the transitioning
> > > 	CPU advances to next.
> > > 	At this point, the no-CBs setup is fully shut down.
> > > 9.	To softirq 4.  Transitioning code advances to next,
> > > 	which is the first, "In softirq".
> > > 	(This one -might- be unnecessary, but...)
> > > 
> > > All transitions are of course with the ->nocb_lock held.
> > > 
> > > When there is only one CPU during early boot near rcu_init() time,
> > > the transition from "In softirq" to "No-CB" can remain be instantaneous.
> > > 
> > > This has the advantage of not slowing things down just because there
> > > is an RCU callback flood in progress.  It also uses an explicit
> > > protocol that should (give or take bugs) maintain full safety both
> > > in protection of ->cblist and in dealing with RCU callback floods.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Agreed. And I really like that it details the whole process in a very
> > explicit way.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> Glad you like it!  And of course please adjust it as needed, up to and
> including doing something completely different that works better.  ;-)

Makes sense to me too, thanks!

 - Joel