Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:03:49 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rushikesh.s.kadam@intel.com, urezki@gmail.com,
        neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com, paulmck@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        vineeth@bitbyteword.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/18] rcu: Introduce call_rcu_lazy() API
 implementation
Message-ID: <20220907100349.GB194889@lothringen>
References: <20220901221720.1105021-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20220901221720.1105021-7-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20220902152132.GA115525@lothringen>
 <Yxa5Ch574cRZxRdo@google.com>
 <20220906151757.GA183806@lothringen>
 <cde6586e-ae61-5e85-3c9a-1ce7dd2464ed@joelfernandes.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cde6586e-ae61-5e85-3c9a-1ce7dd2464ed@joelfernandes.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> +
> >> +	// We had CBs in the bypass list before. There is nothing else to do if:
> >> +	// There were only non-lazy CBs before, in this case, the bypass timer
> > 
> > Kind of misleading. I would replace "There were only non-lazy CBs before" with
> > "There was at least one non-lazy CBs before".
> 
> I really mean "There were only non-lazy CBs ever queued in the bypass list
> before". That's the bypass_is_lazy variable. So I did not fully understand your
> suggested comment change.

I may well be missing something but to me it seems that:

bypass_is_lazy = all bypass callbacks are lazy
!bypass_is_lazy = there is at least one non-lazy bypass callback

And indeed as long as there is at least one non-lazy callback, we don't
want to rely on the LAZY timer.

Am I overlooking something?

> 
> >> +	// or GP-thread will handle the CBs including any new lazy ones.
> >> +	// Or, the new CB is lazy and the old bypass-CBs were also lazy. In this
> >> +	// case the old lazy timer would have been setup. When that expires,
> >> +	// the new lazy one will be handled.
> >> +	if (ncbs && (!bypass_is_lazy || lazy)) {
> >>  		local_irq_restore(flags);
> >>  	} else {
> >>  		// No-CBs GP kthread might be indefinitely asleep, if so, wake.