From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
paulmck@kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
joel@joelfernandes.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, urezki@gmail.com,
boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu/nocb: Handle concurrent nocb kthreads creation
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:14:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211213131407.GD782195@lothringen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <984a63d4c11d04e2ee8a83fc9c61006413bf209e.camel@infradead.org>
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:28:45AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 12:22 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I was about to ack the patch but, should we really add code that isn't going to
> > be necessary before a long while?
>
> Yeah, I'm torn on that. In this case it's harmless enough and it makes
> the code reentrant in its own right instead of relying on the fact that
> the cpuhp code won't invoke it multiple times in parallel. So I think
> that's reasonable defensive programming.
>
The thing is that RCU code is already quite complicated. Are we even at least
sure that we'll ever make CPU hotplug allow concurrent CPU onlining/offlining?
This will require much more thoughts and a new hotplug concurrency
infrastructure that we'll need to base RCU on. IMHO it's a bit early to handle
that on hotplug individual callbacks.
But anyway, let's see what Paul thinks about it...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-13 13:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-11 17:01 [PATCH v2] rcu/nocb: Handle concurrent nocb kthreads creation Neeraj Upadhyay
2021-12-13 8:18 ` [EXTERNAL] " David Woodhouse
2021-12-13 8:55 ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2021-12-13 11:22 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-12-13 11:28 ` David Woodhouse
2021-12-13 13:14 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2021-12-13 19:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211213131407.GD782195@lothringen \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.