Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 20:37:07 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        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: <3cc64b80-0975-4cdf-81ea-952ca80976e4@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20231107215742.363031-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20231107215742.363031-49-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <2027da00-273d-41cf-b9e7-460776181083@paulmck-laptop>
 <87v89lzu5a.ffs@tglx>
 <209f0e89-7ebd-4759-9883-21d842d0d26c@paulmck-laptop>
 <87zfymn6h9.fsf@oracle.com>
 <20231206211022.710ada02@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231206211022.710ada02@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 09:10:22PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 17:31:30 -0800
> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > ---
> > diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> > index 9aa6358a1a16..d8139cda8814 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> > @@ -226,9 +226,11 @@ do { \
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
> >  #define preempt_enable() \
> >  do { \
> >  	barrier(); \
> >  	if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) \
> >  		__preempt_schedule(); \
> > +	else if (unlikely(raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs))) \
> 
> Shouldn't this still have the:
> 
> 	else if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) && \
> 
> That is, is it needed when PREEMPT_RCU is set?

Given that PREEMPT_RCU has been getting along fine without it, I agree
with Steve on this one.  Unless and until someone demonstrates otherwise,
but such a demonstration would almost certainly affect current code,
not just the lazy-preemption changes.

							Thanx, Paul

> -- Steve
> 
> 
> > +		rcu_all_qs_check();
> >  } while (0)
> > 
> >  #define preempt_enable_notrace() \