Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make call_rcu() lazy only when CONFIG_RCU_LAZY is enabled

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 19, 2022, at 1:45 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 08:12:30AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>> On Oct 19, 2022, at 8:10 AM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2022, at 6:34 AM, Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Currently, regardless of whether the CONFIG_RCU_LAZY is enabled,
> >>>>> invoke the call_rcu() is always lazy, it also means that when
> >>>>> CONFIG_RCU_LAZY is disabled, invoke the call_rcu_flush() is also
> >>>>> lazy. therefore, this commit make call_rcu() lazy only when
> >>>>> CONFIG_RCU_LAZY is enabled.
> >> 
> >> First, good eyes!  Thank you for spotting this!!
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 +++++++-
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >>>>> index abc615808b6e..97ef602da3d5 100644
> >>>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >>>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >>>>> @@ -2839,7 +2839,6 @@ void call_rcu_flush(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >>>>>  return __call_rcu_common(head, func, false);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_flush);
> >>>>> -#endif
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> /**
> >>>>> * call_rcu() - Queue an RCU callback for invocation after a grace period.
> >>>>> @@ -2890,6 +2889,13 @@ void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >>>>>  return __call_rcu_common(head, func, true);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> >>>>> +#else
> >>>>> +void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +    return __call_rcu_common(head, func, false);
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks. Instead of adding new function, you can also pass IS_ENABLED(CONFIG…) to the existing function of the same name.
> > 
> > I do like this approach better -- less code, more obvious what is going on.
> 
> Sounds good. Zqiang, do you mind updating your patch along these lines? That way you get the proper attribution.
> 
> More comments below:
> > 
> >>> Looks like though I made every one test the patch without having to enable the config option ;-). Hey, I’m a half glass full kind of guy, why do you ask?
> >>> 
> >>> Paul, I’ll take a closer look once I’m at the desk, but would you prefer to squash a diff into the existing patch, or want a new patch altogether?
> >> 
> >> On the other hand, what I’d want is to nuke the config option altogether or make it default y, we want to catch issues sooner than later.
> > 
> > That might be what we do at some point, but one thing at a time.  Let's
> > not penalize innocent bystanders, at least not just yet.
> 
> It’s a trade off, I thought that’s why we wanted to have the binary search stuff. If no one reports issue on Linux-next, then that code won’t be put to use in the near future at least.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but we currently really are
exposing -next to lazy call_rcu().  ;-)

> > I do very strongly encourage the ChromeOS and Android folks to test this
> > very severely, however.
> 
> Agreed. Yes that will happen, though I have to make a note for Android folks other than Vlad, to backports these (and enable the config option), carefully! Especially on pre-5.15 kernels. Luckily I had to do this (not so trivial) exercise myself.

And this is another situation in which the binary search stuff may prove
extremely useful.

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks!
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> > 
> >                            Thanx, Paul
> > 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks.
> >>> 
> >>> - Joel
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>> 
> >>>> /* Maximum number of jiffies to wait before draining a batch. */
> >>>> #define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES (5 * HZ)
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> 2.25.1
> >>>>