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 10:04:55 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, 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: <20210806080455.wkhlebgt7howjcrk@linutronix.de>
References: <20210805080123.16320-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20210805160337.GI4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210805160337.GI4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-08-05 09:03:37 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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?

Julia crafted that "rcu_normal_after_boot = 1" for RT after we had more
and more synchronize_rcu_expedited() users popping up. I would like to
keep that part (default value) since it good to have for most users.

I don't mind removing CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT part here if there are legitimate
use cases for using "rcu_normal_after_boot = 0".
Paul suggested initially to restrict that option for PREEMPT_RT and I
would follow here Paul's guidance to either remove it or restrict it to
NO_HZ_FULL in RT's case (as suggested).

> 							Thanx, Paul

Sebastian