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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <21bdc866-f9ae-4cda-a996-370bde183fd0@paulmck-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <21bdc866-f9ae-4cda-a996-370bde183fd0@paulmck-laptop>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:50:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiPA8d0z2K1huqP0jCKxfmjBG_VYnJtoADeQWsvWLv9UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RCU regression fix for v6.4
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, jonathanh@nvidia.com, wenst@chromium.org,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com,
        rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl,
        dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com, sachinp@linux.ibm.com,
        qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 09:34, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, it would be nice to abstract this somehow in order to hide it in
> SRCU, but I still don't see a good way of doing this.

Ehh - like we actually do spinlocks in general, perhaps?

Spinlocks always exist. On UP - with no spinlock debugging - it turns
into a zero-sized data structure, and the spin lock/unlock operations
are no-ops.

Why don't you just do the exact same thing with the "struct
srcu_usage". For Tiny SRCU, just make it an empty struct, with an
empty initializer.

IOW, don't "abstract it out". Abstract it IN. Make tiny-rcu still have
it, just as a no-op.

Anyway, I've pulled your fix, but maybe the above would have been the
cleaner solution?

          Linus