Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:09:32 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        willy@infradead.org, mgorman@suse.de, jon.grimm@amd.com,
        bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
        jgross@suse.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        bristot@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        geert@linux-m68k.org, glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
        krypton@ulrich-teichert.org, David.Laight@aculab.com,
        richard@nod.at, mjguzik@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 48/86] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n
Message-ID: <ee3299f8-93c4-4216-8a94-5dc88c06c4ce@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <46a4c47a-ba1c-4776-a6f8-6c2146cbdd0d@paulmck-laptop>
 <31d50051-e42c-4ef2-a1ac-e45370c3752e@paulmck-laptop>
 <d10b6243-41b1-44a0-ba95-0cedc7f6856e@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231121203049.GN8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1cdbb0f6-9078-4023-bf37-8d826ca0c711@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231121163834.571abb52@gandalf.local.home>
 <4605b4f4-8a2b-4653-b684-9c696c36ebd0@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231121175209.1d7ec202@gandalf.local.home>
 <0d6a8e80-c89b-4ded-8de1-8c946874f787@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231121191232.630222d3@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231121191232.630222d3@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 07:12:32PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:01:24 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > I stand by that being in the else statement. It looks like that would keep
> > > the previous work flow.  
> > 
> > Ah, because PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED is zero when we need to reschedule,
> > so that when __preempt_count_dec_and_test() returns false, we might
> > still be in an RCU quiescent state in the case where there was no need
> > to reschedule.  Good point!
> > 
> > In which case...
> > 
> > #define preempt_enable() \
> > do { \
> > 	barrier(); \
> > 	if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) \
> > 		__preempt_schedule(); \
> > 	else if (!sched_feat(FORCE_PREEMPT) && \
> > 		 (preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK | NMI_MASK) == PREEMPT_OFFSET) && \
> > 		 !irqs_disabled()) \
> > ) \
> > 			rcu_all_qs(); \
> > } while (0)
> > 
> > Keeping rcu_all_qs() pretty much as is.  Or some or all of the "else if"
> > condition could be pushed down into rcu_all_qs(), depending on whether
> > Peter's objection was call-site object code size, execution path length,
> > or both.  ;-)
> > 
> > If the objection is both call-site object code size and execution path
> > length, then maybe all but the preempt_count() check should be pushed
> > into rcu_all_qs().
> > 
> > Was that what you had in mind, or am I missing your point?
> 
> Yes, that is what I had in mind.
> 
> Should we also keep the !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) check, which makes
> the entire thing optimized out when PREEMPT_RCU is enabled?

I substituted the !sched_feat(FORCE_PREEMPT) for this because as I
understand it, sites currently using CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y (which is
the default) and booting with preempt=none will currently have their
grace periods helped by cond_resched(), so likely also need help,
perhaps also from preempt_enable().

							Thanx, Paul