Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-8275-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:22:59 +0100
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] rcu: Support direct wake-up of synchronize_rcu()
 users
Message-ID: <ZYQgE_dJnoADxN0a@pc636>
References: <20231128080033.288050-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20231128080033.288050-6-urezki@gmail.com>
 <e04f30bf-9793-4c42-a9a9-24c8f3545f3f@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e04f30bf-9793-4c42-a9a9-24c8f3545f3f@paulmck-laptop>

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 05:46:11PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:00:31AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > This patch introduces a small enhancement which allows to do a
> > direct wake-up of synchronize_rcu() callers. It occurs after a
> > completion of grace period, thus by the gp-kthread.
> > 
> > Number of clients is limited by the hard-coded maximum allowed
> > threshold. The remaining part, if still exists is deferred to
> > a main worker.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> 
> Nice optimization!
> 
> One question below.
> 
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index d7b48996825f..69663a6d5050 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1384,6 +1384,12 @@ static void rcu_poll_gp_seq_end_unlocked(unsigned long *snap)
> >  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * A max threshold for synchronize_rcu() users which are
> > + * awaken directly by the rcu_gp_kthread(). Left part is
> > + * deferred to the main worker.
> > + */
> > +#define SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP 5
> >  #define SR_NORMAL_GP_WAIT_HEAD_MAX 5
> >  
> >  struct sr_wait_node {
> > @@ -1617,7 +1623,8 @@ static DECLARE_WORK(sr_normal_gp_cleanup, rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work);
> >   */
> >  static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> >  {
> > -	struct llist_node *wait_tail;
> > +	struct llist_node *wait_tail, *head, *rcu;
> > +	int done = 0;
> >  
> >  	wait_tail = sr.srs_wait_tail;
> >  	if (wait_tail == NULL)
> > @@ -1626,11 +1633,39 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup(void)
> >  	sr.srs_wait_tail = NULL;
> >  	ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(sr.srs_wait_tail);
> >  
> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_sr_is_wait_head(wait_tail));
> > +	head = wait_tail->next;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Process (a) and (d) cases. See an illustration. Apart of
> > +	 * that it handles the scenario when all clients are done,
> > +	 * wait-head is released if last. The worker is not kicked.
> > +	 */
> > +	llist_for_each_safe(rcu, head, head) {
> 
> This does appear to be a clever way to save eight bytes on the stack,
> but is our stack space really so restricted?  We are being invoked from
> the RCU GP kthread, which isn't using much stack, right?
> 
> If so, let's spend the extra local variable and spare the reader a
> trip to the llist_for_each_safe() definition.
> 
OK, you mean to go with an extra "next" variable to use it in the
llist-loop. I will change it accordingly!

--
Uladzislau Rezki