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, 29 Mar 2023 16:12:30 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] rcu/nocb: Make shrinker to iterate only NOCB CPUs
Message-ID: <84fd8b61-b6db-4b8e-ac02-89e00b267e77@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20230329160203.191380-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20230329160203.191380-5-frederic@kernel.org>
 <519aadf0-6acd-43c0-89cf-caab9e229a46@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZCSvKOJqhejuW09u@lothringen>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZCSvKOJqhejuW09u@lothringen>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 01:58:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 06:02:03PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Callbacks can only be queued as lazy on NOCB CPUs, therefore iterating
> > > over the NOCB mask is enough for both counting and scanning. Just lock
> > > the mostly uncontended barrier mutex on counting as well in order to
> > > keep rcu_nocb_mask stable.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Looks plausible.  ;-)
> > 
> > What are you doing to test this?  For that matter, what should rcutorture
> > be doing to test this?  My guess is that the current callback flooding in
> > rcu_torture_fwd_prog_cr() should do the trick, but figured I should ask.
> 
> All I did was to trigger these shrinker callbacks through debugfs
> (https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/mm/shrinker_debugfs.html)
> 
> But rcutorture isn't testing it because:
> 
> - No torture config has CONFIG_RCU_LAZY
> - rcutorture doesn't do any lazy call_rcu() (always calls hurry for the
>   main RCU flavour).
> 
> And I suspect rcutorture isn't ready for accepting the lazy delay, that would
> require some special treatment.

All fair points!

And yes, any non-lazy callback would delazify everything, so as it
is currently constituted, it would not be testing very much of the
lazy-callback state space.

							Thanx, Paul