Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-154751-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240328075318.83039-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <20240328075318.83039-10-jiangshanlai@gmail.com> <ZiZEcBEvK8NOQvwU@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <ZiZEcBEvK8NOQvwU@localhost.localdomain>
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:02:35 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyBMYDWbRYp86wBu3x6Ry8HM2yiZxNv_WATwhzV+OO+ZFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] x86/rcu: Add rcu_preempt_count
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, 
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, 
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, 
	Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>, 
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>, 
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>, 
	Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com>, Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello, Frederic

Thanks for reviewing.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 7:05=E2=80=AFPM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kerne=
l.org> wrote:

> > +
> > +/* We use the MSB mostly because its available */
>
> I think you can safely remove the "We " from all the comments :-)

The file is mainly copied from arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h.
I will rephrase sentences in later iterations.

>
> > +#define RCU_PREEMPT_UNLOCK_SPECIAL_INVERTED  0x80000000
>
> How about RCU_PREEMPT_UNLOCK_FASTPATH ?


I'm not good at naming. But the MSB really means exactly the opposite
of current->rcu_read_unlock_special and I think "UNLOCK_SPECIAL_INVERTED"
fits the meaning.

>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * We use the RCU_PREEMPT_UNLOCK_SPECIAL_INVERTED bit as an inverted
> > + * current->rcu_read_unlock_special.s such that a decrement hitting 0
> > + * means we can and should call rcu_read_unlock_special().
> > + */
> > +#define RCU_PREEMPT_INIT     (0 + RCU_PREEMPT_UNLOCK_SPECIAL_INVERTED)
>
> Or simply:
>
> #define RCU_PREEMPT_INIT     RCU_PREEMPT_UNLOCK_FASTPATH
>
> Or you can even remove RCU_PREEMPT_INIT and use RCU_PREEMPT_UNLOCK_FASTPA=
TH directly.

"0" means the initial rcu_preempt_count is 0 for the initial task.

> > +
> > +#endif // #ifdef CONFIG_PCPU_RCU_PREEMPT_COUNT
> > +
> > +#endif /* __ASM_RCU_PREEMPT_H */
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.=
c
> > index ba8cf5e9ce56..0b204a649442 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> > @@ -1992,9 +1992,10 @@ static __init int setup_clearcpuid(char *arg)
> >  __setup("clearcpuid=3D", setup_clearcpuid);
> >
> >  DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct pcpu_hot, pcpu_hot) =3D {
> > -     .current_task   =3D &init_task,
> > -     .preempt_count  =3D INIT_PREEMPT_COUNT,
> > -     .top_of_stack   =3D TOP_OF_INIT_STACK,
> > +     .current_task           =3D &init_task,
> > +     .preempt_count          =3D INIT_PREEMPT_COUNT,
> > +     .top_of_stack           =3D TOP_OF_INIT_STACK,
> > +     .rcu_preempt_count      =3D RCU_PREEMPT_INIT,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCPU_RCU_PREEMPT_COUNT ?
>
> Thanks.

Fixed in V2:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240407090558.3395-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com/

Thanks
Lai

>
>
> >  };
> >  EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(pcpu_hot);
> >  EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(const_pcpu_hot);
> > --
> > 2.19.1.6.gb485710b
> >