Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85665-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Zd4DXTyCf17lcTfq@debian.debian> <CANn89iJQX14C1Qb_qbTVG4yoG26Cq7Ct+2qK_8T-Ok2JDdTGEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d633c5b9-53a5-4cd6-9dbb-6623bb74c00b@paulmck-laptop> <f1d1e0fb-2870-4b8f-8936-881ac29a24f1@joelfernandes.org>
 <CAO3-Pboo32iQBBUHUELUkvvpSa=jZwUqefrwC-NBjDYx4yxYJQ@mail.gmail.com> <e592faa3-db99-4074-9492-3f9021b4350c@paulmck-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <e592faa3-db99-4074-9492-3f9021b4350c@paulmck-laptop>
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:14:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRfjhBjsMpBEdCoLd2S+=5YdFSs2AS07xwN72bgtW4sDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, 
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>, 
	Coco Li <lixiaoyan@google.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>, 
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@cloudflare.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, mark.rutland@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:18=E2=80=AFPM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.o=
rg> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:37:51AM -0600, Yan Zhai wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:37=E2=80=AFAM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernan=
des.org> wrote:
> > > Also optionally, I wonder if calling rcu_tasks_qs() directly is bette=
r
> > > (for documentation if anything) since the issue is Tasks RCU specific=
 Also
> > > code comment above the rcu_softirq_qs() call about cond_resched() not=
 taking
> > > care of Tasks RCU would be great!
> > >
> > Yes it's quite surprising to me that cond_resched does not help here,
>
> In theory, it would be possible to make cond_resched() take care of
> Tasks RCU.  In practice, the lazy-preemption work is looking to get rid
> of cond_resched().  But if for some reason cond_resched() needs to stay
> around, doing that work might make sense.

In my opinion, cond_resched() doing Tasks-RCU QS does not make sense
(to me), because cond_resched() is to inform the scheduler to run
something else possibly of higher priority while the current task is
still runnable. On the other hand, what's not permitted in a Tasks RCU
reader is a voluntary sleep. So IMO even though cond_resched() is a
voluntary call, it is still not a sleep but rather a preemption point.

So a Tasks RCU reader should perfectly be able to be scheduled out in
the middle of a read-side critical section (in current code) by
calling cond_resched(). It is just like involuntary preemption in the
middle of a RCU reader, in disguise, Right?

thanks,

 - Joel