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: <a7078657-823f-6283-bfeb-b5dc2c4c8d09@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:51:34 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when
 !CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@google.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, xiang@kernel.org,
        Will Shiu <Will.Shiu@mediatek.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
References: <20230711233816.2187577-1-dhavale@google.com>
 <CAEXW_YQvpiFEaaNoS=Msgi17mU3kZD+q8bNBaHYasMArG9aPig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB=BE-Rm0ycTZXj=wHW_FBCCKbswG+dh3L+o1+CUW=Pg_oWnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230713003201.GA469376@google.com>
 <161f1615-3d85-cf47-d2d5-695adf1ca7d4@linux.alibaba.com>
 <0d9e7b4d-6477-47a6-b3d2-2c9d9b64903d@paulmck-laptop>
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d9e7b4d-6477-47a6-b3d2-2c9d9b64903d@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/7/13 12:27, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:02:17AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>
>>

... sorry forget some.

> 
> One additional question...  What is your plan for kernels built with
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n?  After all, in such kernels, there is no way
> that I know of for code to determine whether it is in an RCU read-side
> critical section, holding a spinlock, or running with preemption disabled.

I'm not sure if Android (or all targetted) users use or care about
this configuration (CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n), personally I think
for such configuration we could just fall back to the workqueue
approach all the time.

Anyway, such optimization really comes from real workloads /
experience, users don't live well without such mitigation.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> 						Thanx, Paul