Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>, paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
        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, rostedt@goodmis.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
In-Reply-To: <87zfymn6h9.fsf@oracle.com>
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>
Date:   Thu, 07 Dec 2023 15:22:48 +0100
Message-ID: <87jzpqt7lz.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 06 2023 at 17:31, Ankur Arora wrote:
> If we end up needing this, is it valid to just optimistically check if
> a quiescent state needs to be registered (see below)?
> Though this version exposes rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs outside RCU but maybe
> we can encapsulate that in linux/rcupdate.h.

>  #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))) \
> +		rcu_all_qs_check();

It's still bloat and we can debate this once we come to the conclusion
that the simple forced reschedule is not sufficient. Until then debating
this is just an academic exercise.

Thanks,

        tglx