Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85788-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:33:07 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, 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,
 mark.rutland@arm.com, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
Message-ID: <20240228173307.529d11ee@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <ba95955d-b63d-4670-b947-e77b740b1a49@paulmck-laptop>
References: <02913b40-7b74-48b3-b15d-53133afd3ba6@paulmck-laptop>
	<3D27EFEF-0452-4555-8277-9159486B41BF@joelfernandes.org>
	<ba95955d-b63d-4670-b947-e77b740b1a49@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:19:11 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> > > 
> > > Well, to your initial point, cond_resched() does eventually invoke
> > > preempt_schedule_common(), so you are quite correct that as far as
> > > Tasks RCU is concerned, cond_resched() is not a quiescent state.  
> > 
> >  Thanks for confirming. :-)  
> 
> However, given that the current Tasks RCU use cases wait for trampolines
> to be evacuated, Tasks RCU could make the choice that cond_resched()
> be a quiescent state, for example, by adjusting rcu_all_qs() and
> .rcu_urgent_qs accordingly.
> 
> But this seems less pressing given the chance that cond_resched() might
> go away in favor of lazy preemption.

Although cond_resched() is technically a "preemption point" and not truly a
voluntary schedule, I would be happy to state that it's not allowed to be
called from trampolines, or their callbacks. Now the question is, does BPF
programs ever call cond_resched()? I don't think they do.

[ Added Alexei ]

-- Steve