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:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 09:41:05 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        bigeasy@linutronix.de, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make rcu_normal_after_boot writable on RT
Message-ID: <YQznkbdkwE/356Vo@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20210805080123.16320-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20210805160337.GI4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <20210805210824.GA1203206@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210805210824.GA1203206@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Thanks for reviewing Paul.

On 05/08/21 14:08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 09:03:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 10:01:23AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Certain configurations (e.g., systems that make heavy use of netns)
> > > need to use synchronize_rcu_expedited() to service RCU grace periods
> > > even after boot.
> > > 
> > > Even though synchronize_rcu_expedited() has been traditionally
> > > considered harmful for RT for the heavy use of IPIs, it is perfectly
> > > usable under certain conditions (e.g. nohz_full).
> > > 
> > > Make rcupdate.rcu_normal_after_boot= again writeable on RT, but keep
> > > its default value to 1 (enabled) to avoid regressions. Users who need
> > > synchronize_rcu_expedited() will boot with rcupdate.rcu_normal_after_
> > > boot=0 in the kernel cmdline.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Makes sense to me!
> > 
> > But would another of the -rt people be willing to give an Acked-by?
> > For example, maybe they would prefer this kernel boot parameter to be
> > exposed only if (!PREEMPT_RT || NO_HZ_FULL).  Or are there !NO_HZ_FULL
> > situations where rcu_normal_after_boot makes sense?
> 
> Ah, and this will also need to be reflected in the WARN_ON_ONCE()
> in synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait() in kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h.

Indeed. Will add the change as soon as I receive indication about your
first point.

Best,
Juri