From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 05:46:37 -0700
Message-ID: <20130501124637.GO3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1367290378-29224-1-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au>
 <1367290378-29224-2-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au>
 <alpine.LFD.2.00.1304301011310.1700@ja.ssi.bg>
 <20130430072944.GA13959@verge.net.au>
 <alpine.LFD.2.00.1304301051260.1700@ja.ssi.bg>
 <20130501091012.GB28253@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Return-path: <lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130501091012.GB28253@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:10:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:52:38AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > 
> > 	Hello,
> > 
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
> > 
> > > > > +static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	if (need_resched()) {
> > > > 
> > > > 	Ops, it should be without above need_resched.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, to clarify, just this:
> > > 
> > > static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > > {
> > > 	rcu_read_unlock();
> > > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > 	cond_resched();
> > > #endif
> > > 	rcu_read_lock();
> > > }
> > 
> > 	Yes, thanks!
> 
> OK, now I'm confused.. PREEMPT_RCU would preempt in any case, so why bother
> dropping rcu_read_lock() at all?

Good point, I was assuming that the goal was to let grace periods end
as well as to allow preemption.  The momentary dropping out of the
RCU read-side critical section allows the grace periods to end.

> That is; the thing that makes sense to me is:
> 
> static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> 	if (need_resched()) {
> 		rcu_read_unlock();
> 		cond_resched();
> 		rcu_read_lock();
> 	}
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
> }
> 
> That would have an rcu_read_lock() break and voluntary preemption point for
> non-preemptible RCU and not bother with the stuff for preemptible RCU.

If the only goal is to allow preemption, and if long grace periods are
not a concern, then this alternate approach would work fine as well.

Of course, both approaches assume that the caller is in a place
where having all RCU-protected data disappear is OK!

							Thanx, Paul