Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-89087-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:30:01 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Masami
 Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Ankur Arora
 <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ftrace] Chose RCU Tasks based on TASKS_RCU rather
 than PREEMPTION
Message-ID: <20240301153001.0d544f9c@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <2835d5ea-0396-49f6-88fb-be49cb998cc5@paulmck-laptop>
References: <f6507b10-5bb5-4407-bd4d-c547193a5a28@paulmck-laptop>
	<20240228152236.7a4c9eec@gandalf.local.home>
	<b5acdc28-0441-49ca-9e8d-50d6ac40c395@paulmck-laptop>
	<2835d5ea-0396-49f6-88fb-be49cb998cc5@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 12:25:10 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> > That would work for me.  If there are no objections, I will make this
> > change.  
> 
> But I did check the latency of synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() (about 100ms)
> and synchronize_rcu() (about 20ms).  This is on a 80-hardware-thread
> x86 system that is being flooded with calls to one or the other of
> these two functions, but is otherwise idle.  So adding that unnecessary
> synchronize_rcu() adds about 20% to that synchronization delay.
> 
> Which might still be OK, but...  In the immortal words of MS-DOS,
> "Are you sure?".  ;-)

It's just safe to keep it. It's definitely not a fast path.

-- Steve