From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC95C3A59B for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7642133F for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelfernandes.org header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.b="cB47Bb4r" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726067AbfHQFxs (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 01:53:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:33974 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725267AbfHQFxs (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 01:53:48 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id d3so1451293plr.1 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 22:53:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=iF1d/XucEfTZBKbZNeVNe2rlZZm7hfnL8VoxPV7mfrs=; b=cB47Bb4rnd6z0pZ3KLPUCVyuTUj5PHum8fUBgfOrDHW6sjSZs109jNX4k6geJstPP3 eGuJYxyQE4qkZG4yTgwEElWDP6XSjxJxVAPWruAQALOp39weBVoAaTHIiCfi/6aW36jd pL0WfuhSCh8uf5nLPuAT68K6wSOhxHsN4Ymm4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=iF1d/XucEfTZBKbZNeVNe2rlZZm7hfnL8VoxPV7mfrs=; b=FOt5RD6hINQhtuYd+WO+udZ+s0ShPhRse+6RYYEPwezYEwaMptNvLxPgPMoWmpNIKg pz2mDQBMFA16RDJGg5m67AfD7WdTtnhHduapFa/JdZ5A0R9ahopGrR49HFOZKF4iSMLl 6emmR0qzX2JNR1TjTqWAuCB+OdqiMntkLQh7TSSbMttweDq9msCLkVCLsWxAKI07g4+Z UnR9geRi9UzLa+vRBqtlefDYytfkSOjwumD0HZvFNlzhgYPMBZ0OScvA/fUmPTWLgvHM DL8pM9cxuE9mxNVYYeoEv/1MQtZECE7E0EusGxhoxZh6hTbC0RifGhHwUA0RpFlEw1HC J5+w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW/9nL0SJ6ytnjfUrf+VWXKa6TN1kF4kfv8Vz85RqZDDwQMHFG6 X6aCqm/ngzJiffoEsVVDXg3sLg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2lfmYpZuJnBqQg+aZNL/ns18BABfPrDtNxRGURxTiWR9Ghm48SUA3n3gfjEdkAO7cKoEepA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ff05:: with SMTP id f5mr12236863plj.116.1566021227286; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 22:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([172.19.216.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y11sm7841397pfb.119.2019.08.16.22.53.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 22:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 01:53:29 -0400 From: Joel Fernandes To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: LKML , kernel-team , kernel-team , Byungchul Park , Davidlohr Bueso , Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , Byungchul Park , Rao Shoaib , rcu , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu() batching Message-ID: <20190817055329.GA151631@google.com> References: <20190814160411.58591-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190816164330.GA8320@linux.ibm.com> <20190816174429.GE10481@google.com> <20190816191629.GW28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190817035637.GY28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190817043024.GA137383@google.com> <20190817052023.GA28441@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190817052023.GA28441@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:20:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:30:24AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:56:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:32:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:16 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, Joel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reworked the commit log as follows, but was then unsuccessful in > > > > > > > working out which -rcu commit to apply it to. Could you please > > > > > > > tell me what commit to apply this to? (Once applied, git cherry-pick > > > > > > > is usually pretty good about handling minor conflicts.) > > > > > > > > > > > > It was originally based on v5.3-rc2 > > > > > > > > > > > > I was able to apply it just now to the rcu -dev branch and I pushed it here: > > > > > > https://github.com/joelagnel/linux-kernel.git (branch paul-dev) > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know if any other issues, thanks for the change log rework! > > > > > > > > > > Pulled and cherry-picked, thank you! > > > > > > > > > > Just for grins, I also pushed out a from-joel.2019.08.16a showing the > > > > > results of the pull. If you pull that branch, then run something like > > > > > "gitk v5.3-rc2..", and then do the same with branch "dev", comparing the > > > > > two might illustrate some of the reasons for the current restrictions > > > > > on pull requests and trees subject to rebase. > > > > > > > > Right, I did the compare and see what you mean. I guess sending any > > > > future pull requests against Linux -next would be the best option? > > > > > > Hmmm... You really want to send some pull requests, don't you? ;-) > > > > I would be lying if I said I don't have the itch to ;-) > > > > > Suppose you had sent that pull request against Linux -next or v5.2 > > > or wherever. What would happen next, given the high probability of a > > > conflict with someone else's patch? What would the result look like? > > > > One hopes that the tools are able to automatically resolve the resolution, > > however adequate re-inspection of the resulting code and testing it would be > > needed in either case, to ensure the conflict resolution (whether manual or > > automatic) happened correctly. > > I didn't ask you to hope. I instead asked you what tell me what would > actually happen. ;-) > > You could actually try this by randomly grouping the patches in -rcu > (say, placing every third patch into one of three groups), generating > separate pull requests, and then merging the pull requests together. > Then you wouldn't have to hope. You could instead look at it in (say) > gitk after the pieces were put together. So you take whatever is worked on in 'dev' and create separate branches out of them, then merge them together later? I have seen you doing these tricks and would love to get ideas from your experiences on these. > > IIUC, this usually depends on the maintainer's preference on which branch to > > send patches against. > > > > Are you saying -rcu's dev branch is still the best option to send patches > > against, even though it is rebased often? > > Sounds like we might need to discuss this face to face. Yes, let us talk for sure at plumbers, thank you so much! (Also I sent a patch just now to fix that xchg() issue). - Joel