Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-43071-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:23:01 +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 v4 0/4] Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency(v4)
Message-ID: <ZbfQ5cOkeReti7J0@pc636>
References: <20240104162510.72773-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <620b475d-eef8-4396-9d3a-d3dcf1d70f9a@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <620b475d-eef8-4396-9d3a-d3dcf1d70f9a@paulmck-laptop>

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:07:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 05:25:06PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > This is a v4 that tends to improve synchronize_rcu() call. To be more
> > specific it is about reducing a waiting time(especially worst cases)
> > of caller that blocks until a grace period is elapsed. 
> > 
> > In general, this series separates synchronize_rcu() callers from other
> > callbacks. We keep a dedicated an independent queue, thus the processing
> > of it starts as soon as grace period is over, so there is no need to wait
> > until other callbacks are processed one by one. Please note, a number of
> > callbacks can be 10K, 20K, 60K and so on. That is why this series maintain
> > a separate track for this call that blocks a context.
> 
> And before I forget (again), a possible follow-on to this work is to
> reduce cond_synchronize_rcu() and cond_synchronize_rcu_full() latency.
> Right now, these wait for a full additional grace period (and maybe
> more) when the required grace period has not elapsed.  In contrast,
> this work might enable waiting only for the needed portion of a grace
> period to elapse.
> 
Thanks. I see it. Probably we also need to move "sync" related
functionality out of tree.c file to the sync.c or something similar
to that name. IMO. 

Thanks!

--
Uladzislau Rezki