From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:45:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200807154529.GB2865655@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200807153732.GA2865655@google.com>
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:37:32AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:48:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > > And I could make the comment here as:
> > > /*
> > > * Delete QS reporting from here, by June 2021, if the warning does not
> > > * fire. Leave the warning indefinitely. Check RCU design requirements
> > > * in Documentation/RCU/ about CPU hotplug requirements.
> > > */
> >
> > Rather than decide for our future selves, could we please just suggest
> > reviewing this on June 2021? Or, given enterprise distro schedules,
> > 2024. :-/
>
> I am replacing it with the following, let me know if any objections, thanks:
>
> + * XXX: The following rcu_report_qs_rnp() is redundant. If the below
> + * warning does not fire, consider replacing it with the "else" block,
> + * by June 2021 or so. The rationale for this is as follows: The CPU
> + * onlining path does not need to report QS for an offline CPU. Either
> + * the QS should have reported during CPU offlining, or during
> + * rcu_gp_init() if it detected a race with either CPU offlining or
> + * task unblocking on previously offlined CPUs. To avoid deadlocks
> + * related to waiting on timers or cpu hotplug locks, only those paths
> + * do the QS reporting for offline CPUs.
And you did mention you still want the warn-on indefinitely, so I'll document
that in the comment as well.
Now it looks like:
/*
* XXX: The following rcu_report_qs_rnp() is redundant. If the below
* warning does not fire, consider replacing it with the "else" block,
* by June 2021 or so (while keeping the warning). The rationale for
* this is as follows: The CPU onlining path does not need to report QS
* for an offline CPU. Either the QS should have reported during CPU
* offlining, or during rcu_gp_init() if it detected a race with either
* CPU offlining or task unblocking on a node with all of its CPUs
* previously offlined. To avoid deadlocks related to waiting on
* timers or cpu hotplug locks, only these paths do the QS reporting
* for offline CPUs making the following reporting redundant.
*/
thanks,
- Joel
>
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > I will post my v3 with changes to the requirements document.
> > >
> > > Let me know any other comments, thanks,
> > >
> > > - Joel
> > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-07 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-30 3:02 [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-07-30 3:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu/tree: Clarify comments about FQS loop reporting quiescent states Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-07-30 3:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-30 16:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-31 1:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-31 1:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-30 16:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-31 1:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-31 1:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-31 3:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-07 15:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-07 15:45 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-09-29 19:29 Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-02 4:39 ` 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=20200807154529.GB2865655@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox