Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96045-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:58:40 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@cloudflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
Message-ID: <1165c893-b812-4f88-a1d6-fff85592657e@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <55900c6a-f181-4c5c-8de2-bca640c4af3e@paulmck-laptop>
 <10FC3F5F-AA33-4F81-9EB6-87EB2D41F3EE@joelfernandes.org>
 <99b2ccae-07f6-4350-9c55-25ec7ae065c0@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAEXW_YQ+40a1-hk5ZP+QJ54xniSutosC7MjMscJJy8fen-gU9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <f1e77cd2-18b2-4ab1-8ce3-da2c6babbd53@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAEXW_YRDiTXJ_GwK5soSVno73yN9FUA5GjLYAOcCTtqQvPGcFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fcaf6cad-9959-4b6d-a6e4-05ae1b2fabdc@joelfernandes.org>
 <Zenx_Q0UiwMbSAdP@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <20240307135215.7ba88d83@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240307135215.7ba88d83@gandalf.local.home>

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 01:52:15PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:57:33 +0000
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > * Use rcu_tasks_trace to synchronize updates?
> 
> Yes. I think I wanted both. The above to make sure it covers all cases
> where something could be preempted, and a case for those covered when RCU
> isn't watching (which always has preemption disabled).
> 
> My mistake was I thought synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() did both. But I just
> found out recently that it is not a superset of synchronize_rcu_tasks().
> 
> But it really needs it in every location that synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude()
> is called.

Should any RCU Tasks Rude grace-period request also wait for an RCU Tasks
grace period?

I would feel better about proposing this, especially for
call_rcu_tasks_rude(), if RCU Tasks Rude was not supposed to be going
away after all the noinstr tags are in place.

							Thanx, Paul