Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-1343-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:58:55 +0100
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	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>,
	Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>,
	John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Provide a boot time parameter to control lazy RCU
Message-ID: <ZXyFz1BD6Nh1zsnc@pc636>
References: <20231203011252.233748-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <ZXhTjrTqZvMTXKtK@pc636>
 <CAEXW_YSMwmG_joipkK5W1Bdwzdjm_a3f86BijkAkAJTHOWkE0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXmI9zDW8KlZqQj7@pc636>
 <CAEXW_YRdgQywfJ+A9fa1itDojPDiZ_Xc3M8n6dS=M2LHX9hSFg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YRdgQywfJ+A9fa1itDojPDiZ_Xc3M8n6dS=M2LHX9hSFg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello, Joel!

> [....]
> > > > > +       Use rcutree.enable_rcu_lazy=0 to turn it off at boot time.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +config RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_OFF
> > > > > +     bool "Turn RCU lazy invocation off by default"
> > > > > +     depends on RCU_LAZY
> > > > > +     default n
> > > > > +     help
> > > > > +       Allows building the kernel with CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y yet keep it default
> > > > > +       off. Boot time param rcutree.enable_rcu_lazy=1 can be used to switch
> > > > > +       it back on.
> > > > > +
> > > > >  config RCU_DOUBLE_CHECK_CB_TIME
> > > > >       bool "RCU callback-batch backup time check"
> > > > >       depends on RCU_EXPERT
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > index 3ac3c846105f..8b7675624815 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > @@ -2719,6 +2719,9 @@ __call_rcu_common(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func, bool lazy_in)
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_LAZY
> > > > > +static bool enable_rcu_lazy __read_mostly = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_OFF);
> > > > > +module_param(enable_rcu_lazy, bool, 0444);
> > > > > +
> > > > >  /**
> > > > >   * call_rcu_hurry() - Queue RCU callback for invocation after grace period, and
> > > > >   * flush all lazy callbacks (including the new one) to the main ->cblist while
> > > > > @@ -2744,6 +2747,8 @@ void call_rcu_hurry(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > > > >       __call_rcu_common(head, func, false);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_hurry);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +#define enable_rcu_lazy              false
> > > > >  #endif
> > > > >
> > > > >  /**
> > > > > @@ -2792,7 +2797,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_hurry);
> > > > >   */
> > > > >  void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -     __call_rcu_common(head, func, IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_LAZY));
> > > > > +     __call_rcu_common(head, func, enable_rcu_lazy);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> > > > >
> > > > I think, it makes sense. Especially for devices/systems where it is hard
> > > > to recompile the kernel and deploy it. For example, Google and GKI approach.
> > >
> > > My concerns had nothing to do with recompiling the kernel. Passing a
> > > boot parameter (without a kernel compile) can just as well
> > > default-disable the feature.
> > >
> > > I think what Qais is saying is that passing a boot parameter is itself
> > > a hassle in Android (something I did not know about) because of GKI
> > > etc.
> > >
> > That is true. Doing:
> >
> > echo 1 > /sys/.../enable_lazy
> >
> > is a way how to make it easy and flexible.
> 
> Hey Vlad, are you suggesting that the boot parameter be made to
> support runtime? We can keep that for later as it may get complicated.
> Qais's boot parameter is designed only for boot time.
> 
No problem. Yes, i meant a runtime one. But as you stated there might
be hidden issues witch we are not aware of yet.

Thanks!

--
Uladzislau Rezki