Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99794-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <7a26275f-7ed9-49a8-90ec-798f2f2de195@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:24:15 -0400
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/30] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n,
 PREEMPT_COUNT=y
Content-Language: en-US
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, paulmck@kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
 torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org,
 bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
 juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, willy@infradead.org,
 mgorman@suse.de, jpoimboe@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jgross@suse.com,
 andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, bristot@kernel.org,
 mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
 glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com,
 mattst88@gmail.com, krypton@ulrich-teichert.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
 David.Laight@aculab.com, richard@nod.at, mjguzik@gmail.com,
 jon.grimm@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com,
 boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240213055554.1802415-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20240213055554.1802415-16-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20240310100330.GA2705505@joelbox2>
 <da51dacc-cdf7-4129-b424-b32764736f48@paulmck-laptop>
 <fd48ea5c-bc74-4914-a621-d12c9741c014@joelfernandes.org>
 <87r0ghl51f.fsf@oracle.com>
 <66820daa-421b-469a-a7e8-ae7ae9dfa978@joelfernandes.org>
 <87wmq8pop1.ffs@tglx>
 <5b78a338-cb82-4ac4-8004-77a3eb150604@joelfernandes.org>
 <87msr4f8cj.fsf@oracle.com>
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
In-Reply-To: <87msr4f8cj.fsf@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 3/11/2024 11:16 PM, Ankur Arora wrote:
> 
> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> writes:
> 
>> Hi, Thomas,
>> Thanks for your reply! I replied below.
>>
>> On 3/11/2024 3:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 11 2024 at 11:25, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
>    [ ... ]
> 
>>> What's wrong with the combination of PREEMPT_AUTO=y and PREEMPT_RCU=n?
>>> Paul and me agreed long ago that this needs to be supported.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with it. Its just a bit quirky (again just a point of
>> view), that for a configuration that causes preemption (similar to
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y), that PREEMPT_RCU can be disabled. After all, again with
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, PREEMPT_RCU cannot be currently disabled.
> 
> I think the argument was that PREEMPT_RCU=y is suboptimal for certain
> workloads, and those configurations might prefer the stronger
> forward-progress guarantees that PREEMPT_RCU=n provides.
> 
> See this:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/73ecce1c-d321-4579-b892-13b1e0a0620a@paulmck-laptop/T/#m6aab5a6fd5f1fd4c3dc9282ce564e64f2fa6cdc3
> 
> and the surrounding thread.

Thanks for the link. Sorry for any noise due to being late to the party. Based
on the discussions, I concur with everyone on the goal of getting rid of
CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC and the various cond_resched()/might_sleep() things. I'll
also go look harder at what else we need to get CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y/n working
with CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO=y.

thanks,

- Joel