Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 22:21:08 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        "mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        "quic_neeraju@quicinc.com" <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        "jiangshanlai@gmail.com" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "josh@joshtriplett.org" <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        "joel@joelfernandes.org" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        "urezki@gmail.com" <urezki@gmail.com>,
        "rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make rcu_state.n_online_cpus updates atomic
Message-ID: <20211213212108.GA786870@lothringen>
References: <20211213070059.6381-1-quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
 <471d6615f245168d4c6c96c7ac1ccabf56b75945.camel@amazon.co.uk>
 <20211213193256.GR641268@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20211213193256.GR641268@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:32:56AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 08:09:22AM +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 12:30 +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > To support onlining multiple CPUs concurrently,
> > > change rcu_state.n_online_cpus updates to be atomic.
> > > Note, it's ok for rcu_blocking_is_gp() to do a
> > > atomic_read(&rcu_state.n_online_cpus), as the
> > > value of .n_online_cpus switches from 1->2, in
> > > rcutree_prepare_cpu(), which runs before the new
> > > CPU comes online. Similarly 2->1 transition happens
> > > from rcutree_dead_cpu(), which executes after the
> > > CPU is offlined, and runs on the last online CPU.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
> > 
> > In my parallel-bringup series, the prepare stages are still being
> > executed in series on the BSP, so I don't think this patch is needed
> > yet. I'm not sure we'd ever end up with the prepare stages being done
> > in parallel — the most I see us doing is onlining a single *batch* of
> > CPUs at a time, much like bringup_nonboot_cpus() does.
> > 
> > But this patch certainly doesn't *hurt*.
> > 
> > Acked-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> 
> Queued for further review and testing.
> 
> To Frederic's point, this won't go to mainline unless it is actually
> needed, but it will at least be pulled into a branch in -rcu marked with
> a tag for future reference.

Ok, sounds reasonable then.

Thanks!