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;
Message-ID: <b106edc3-2557-0669-86bf-10c08739a86a@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 10:01:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/18] rcu: Introduce call_rcu_lazy() API
 implementation
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.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
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>
 <20220907100349.GB194889@lothringen>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220907100349.GB194889@lothringen>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 9/7/2022 6:03 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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?

No you are not over looking and you are very right that I may need to change the
comment.

To clarify my intent, a wake up or timer adjustment needs to be done only if:

1. Bypass list was fully empty before (this is the first bypass list entry).

Or both the below conditions are met:

1. Bypass list had only lazy CBs before.

2. The new CB is non-lazy.

Instead of saying, "nothing needs to be done if...", I will change it to:

        // A wake up of the grace period kthread or timer adjustment needs to
        // be done only if:
        // 1. Bypass list was empty before (this is the first bypass queue).
        //      Or, both the below conditions are met:
        // 1. Bypass list had only lazy CBs before.
        // 2. The new CB is non-lazy.

That sounds less confusing...

Or, I can just make the edit you suggested... let me know either way!

Thanks!

 - Joel