* [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period @ 2023-11-01 3:35 Zqiang 2023-11-03 2:54 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Zqiang @ 2023-11-01 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paulmck, frederic, joel, boqun.feng; +Cc: qiang.zhang1211, rcu, linux-kernel Currently, when running the rcutorture testing, if the fqs_task kthread was created, the periodic fqs operations will be performed, regardless of whether the grace-period is ongoing. however, if there is no ongoing grace-period, invoke the rcu_force_quiescent_state() has no effect, because when the new grace-period starting, will clear all flags int rcu_state.gp_flags in rcu_gp_init(). this commit therefore add rcu_gp_in_progress() check in rcu_force_quiescent_state(), if there is no ongoing grace-period, return directly. Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com> --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index aa4c808978b8..5b4279ef66da 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -2338,6 +2338,8 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) struct rcu_node *rnp; struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; + if (!rcu_gp_in_progress()) + return; /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ rnp = raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.mynode); for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period 2023-11-01 3:35 [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period Zqiang @ 2023-11-03 2:54 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-11-03 7:14 ` Z qiang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-11-03 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zqiang; +Cc: frederic, joel, boqun.feng, rcu, linux-kernel On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:35:07AM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > Currently, when running the rcutorture testing, if the fqs_task > kthread was created, the periodic fqs operations will be performed, > regardless of whether the grace-period is ongoing. however, if there > is no ongoing grace-period, invoke the rcu_force_quiescent_state() has > no effect, because when the new grace-period starting, will clear all > flags int rcu_state.gp_flags in rcu_gp_init(). this commit therefore add > rcu_gp_in_progress() check in rcu_force_quiescent_state(), if there is > no ongoing grace-period, return directly. > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com> Nice optimization, but one question below. Thanx, Paul > --- > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index aa4c808978b8..5b4279ef66da 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -2338,6 +2338,8 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) > struct rcu_node *rnp; > struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; > > + if (!rcu_gp_in_progress()) > + return; Suppose that the grace period that was in progress above ends right at this point in the code. We will still do the useless grace forcing of quiescent states. Which means that this code path does need to be tested. So, when you run rcutorture with this change, how often has the grace period ended before this function returns? If that happens reasonably often, say more than once per minute or so, then this works nicely. If not, we do need to do something to make sure that that code path gets tested. Thoughts? > /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ > rnp = raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.mynode); > for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { > -- > 2.17.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period 2023-11-03 2:54 ` Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-11-03 7:14 ` Z qiang 2023-11-03 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Z qiang @ 2023-11-03 7:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paulmck; +Cc: frederic, joel, boqun.feng, rcu, linux-kernel > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:35:07AM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > > Currently, when running the rcutorture testing, if the fqs_task > > kthread was created, the periodic fqs operations will be performed, > > regardless of whether the grace-period is ongoing. however, if there > > is no ongoing grace-period, invoke the rcu_force_quiescent_state() has > > no effect, because when the new grace-period starting, will clear all > > flags int rcu_state.gp_flags in rcu_gp_init(). this commit therefore add > > rcu_gp_in_progress() check in rcu_force_quiescent_state(), if there is > > no ongoing grace-period, return directly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com> > > Nice optimization, but one question below. > > Thanx, Paul > > > --- > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > index aa4c808978b8..5b4279ef66da 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > @@ -2338,6 +2338,8 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) > > struct rcu_node *rnp; > > struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; > > > > + if (!rcu_gp_in_progress()) > > + return; > > Suppose that the grace period that was in progress above ends right > at this point in the code. We will still do the useless grace > forcing of quiescent states. Which means that this code path > does need to be tested. > > So, when you run rcutorture with this change, how often has the > grace period ended before this function returns? If that happens > reasonably often, say more than once per minute or so, then this > works nicely. If not, we do need to do something to make sure > that that code path gets tested. > > Thoughts? Thanks for the suggestion, I will add some debug information to test again. Thanks Zqiang > > > /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ > > rnp = raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.mynode); > > for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { > > -- > > 2.17.1 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period 2023-11-03 7:14 ` Z qiang @ 2023-11-03 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-11-07 6:30 ` Z qiang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-11-03 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Z qiang; +Cc: frederic, joel, boqun.feng, rcu, linux-kernel On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 03:14:11PM +0800, Z qiang wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:35:07AM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > > > Currently, when running the rcutorture testing, if the fqs_task > > > kthread was created, the periodic fqs operations will be performed, > > > regardless of whether the grace-period is ongoing. however, if there > > > is no ongoing grace-period, invoke the rcu_force_quiescent_state() has > > > no effect, because when the new grace-period starting, will clear all > > > flags int rcu_state.gp_flags in rcu_gp_init(). this commit therefore add > > > rcu_gp_in_progress() check in rcu_force_quiescent_state(), if there is > > > no ongoing grace-period, return directly. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com> > > > > Nice optimization, but one question below. > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > --- > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > index aa4c808978b8..5b4279ef66da 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > @@ -2338,6 +2338,8 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) > > > struct rcu_node *rnp; > > > struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; > > > > > > + if (!rcu_gp_in_progress()) > > > + return; > > > > Suppose that the grace period that was in progress above ends right > > at this point in the code. We will still do the useless grace > > forcing of quiescent states. Which means that this code path > > does need to be tested. > > > > So, when you run rcutorture with this change, how often has the > > grace period ended before this function returns? If that happens > > reasonably often, say more than once per minute or so, then this > > works nicely. If not, we do need to do something to make sure > > that that code path gets tested. > > > > Thoughts? > > Thanks for the suggestion, I will add some debug information to test again. Very good, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with! Thanx, Paul > Thanks > Zqiang > > > > > > /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ > > > rnp = raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.mynode); > > > for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { > > > -- > > > 2.17.1 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period 2023-11-03 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-11-07 6:30 ` Z qiang 2023-11-07 16:53 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Z qiang @ 2023-11-07 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paulmck; +Cc: frederic, joel, boqun.feng, rcu, linux-kernel > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 03:14:11PM +0800, Z qiang wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:35:07AM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > > > > Currently, when running the rcutorture testing, if the fqs_task > > > > kthread was created, the periodic fqs operations will be performed, > > > > regardless of whether the grace-period is ongoing. however, if there > > > > is no ongoing grace-period, invoke the rcu_force_quiescent_state() has > > > > no effect, because when the new grace-period starting, will clear all > > > > flags int rcu_state.gp_flags in rcu_gp_init(). this commit therefore add > > > > rcu_gp_in_progress() check in rcu_force_quiescent_state(), if there is > > > > no ongoing grace-period, return directly. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com> > > > > > > Nice optimization, but one question below. > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > --- > > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > index aa4c808978b8..5b4279ef66da 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > @@ -2338,6 +2338,8 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) > > > > struct rcu_node *rnp; > > > > struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; > > > > > > > > + if (!rcu_gp_in_progress()) > > > > + return; > > > > > > Suppose that the grace period that was in progress above ends right > > > at this point in the code. We will still do the useless grace > > > forcing of quiescent states. Which means that this code path > > > does need to be tested. > > > > > > So, when you run rcutorture with this change, how often has the > > > grace period ended before this function returns? If that happens > > > reasonably often, say more than once per minute or so, then this > > > works nicely. If not, we do need to do something to make sure > > > that that code path gets tested. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, I will add some debug information to test again. > > Very good, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with! > Hi, Paul I added some debug code to run rcu torture tests: diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h index 98e13be411af..248e13e1ccd6 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h @@ -548,6 +548,9 @@ void do_trace_rcu_torture_read(const char *rcutorturename, unsigned long c_old, unsigned long c); void rcu_gp_set_torture_wait(int duration); +void rcutorture_fqs_set(bool on); +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_nr(void); +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr(void); #else static inline void rcutorture_get_gp_data(enum rcutorture_type test_type, int *flags, unsigned long *gp_seq) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c index 9bd6856135d7..15f506c26df3 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c @@ -1179,6 +1179,7 @@ rcu_torture_fqs(void *arg) int oldnice = task_nice(current); VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("rcu_torture_fqs task started"); + rcutorture_fqs_set(true); do { fqs_resume_time = jiffies + fqs_stutter * HZ; while (time_before(jiffies, fqs_resume_time) && @@ -1195,6 +1196,7 @@ rcu_torture_fqs(void *arg) if (stutter_wait("rcu_torture_fqs")) sched_set_normal(current, oldnice); } while (!torture_must_stop()); + rcutorture_fqs_set(false); torture_kthread_stopping("rcu_torture_fqs"); return 0; } @@ -2213,6 +2215,7 @@ rcu_torture_stats_print(void) pr_cont("read-exits: %ld ", data_race(n_read_exits)); // Statistic. pr_cont("nocb-toggles: %ld:%ld\n", atomic_long_read(&n_nocb_offload), atomic_long_read(&n_nocb_deoffload)); + pr_cont("nr_fqs: %ld:%ld\n", rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr(), rcutorture_fqs_nr()); pr_alert("%s%s ", torture_type, TORTURE_FLAG); if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_torture_mberror) || diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index cb1caefa8bd0..9ae0c442e552 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -2299,6 +2299,38 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct rcu_data *rdp)) } } +static bool rcu_fqs_enable; +static unsigned long fqs_valid_nr; +static unsigned long fqs_nr; + +void rcutorture_fqs_set(bool on) +{ + WRITE_ONCE(rcu_fqs_enable, on); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcutorture_fqs_set); + +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_nr(void) +{ + return READ_ONCE(fqs_nr); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcutorture_fqs_nr); + +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr(void) +{ + return READ_ONCE(fqs_valid_nr); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr); + +void rcutorture_fqs_account(void) +{ + if (rcu_fqs_enable) { + if (READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_state) == RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS || + READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_state) == RCU_GP_DOING_FQS) + WRITE_ONCE(fqs_valid_nr, fqs_valid_nr + 1); + WRITE_ONCE(fqs_nr, fqs_nr + 1); + } +} + /* * Force quiescent states on reluctant CPUs, and also detect which * CPUs are in dyntick-idle mode. @@ -2333,6 +2365,7 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags, READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) | RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp_old, flags); + rcutorture_fqs_account(); rcu_gp_kthread_wake(); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_force_quiescent_state); runqemu kvm nographic slirp qemuparams="-smp 4 -m 1024" bootparams="rcutorture.fqs_duration=6 rcutorture.fqs_holdoff=1 rcutorture.shutdown_secs=3600" -d original [ 3603.574361] nr_fqs: 1635:1723 apply this patch [ 3603.990193] nr_fqs: 1787:1795 Thanks Zqiang > > Thanx, Paul > > > Thanks > > Zqiang > > > > > > > > > /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ > > > > rnp = raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.mynode); > > > > for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { > > > > -- > > > > 2.17.1 > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period 2023-11-07 6:30 ` Z qiang @ 2023-11-07 16:53 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-11-07 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Z qiang; +Cc: frederic, joel, boqun.feng, rcu, linux-kernel On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 02:30:57PM +0800, Z qiang wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 03:14:11PM +0800, Z qiang wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:35:07AM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > > > > > Currently, when running the rcutorture testing, if the fqs_task > > > > > kthread was created, the periodic fqs operations will be performed, > > > > > regardless of whether the grace-period is ongoing. however, if there > > > > > is no ongoing grace-period, invoke the rcu_force_quiescent_state() has > > > > > no effect, because when the new grace-period starting, will clear all > > > > > flags int rcu_state.gp_flags in rcu_gp_init(). this commit therefore add > > > > > rcu_gp_in_progress() check in rcu_force_quiescent_state(), if there is > > > > > no ongoing grace-period, return directly. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Nice optimization, but one question below. > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > index aa4c808978b8..5b4279ef66da 100644 > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > @@ -2338,6 +2338,8 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) > > > > > struct rcu_node *rnp; > > > > > struct rcu_node *rnp_old = NULL; > > > > > > > > > > + if (!rcu_gp_in_progress()) > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > > Suppose that the grace period that was in progress above ends right > > > > at this point in the code. We will still do the useless grace > > > > forcing of quiescent states. Which means that this code path > > > > does need to be tested. > > > > > > > > So, when you run rcutorture with this change, how often has the > > > > grace period ended before this function returns? If that happens > > > > reasonably often, say more than once per minute or so, then this > > > > works nicely. If not, we do need to do something to make sure > > > > that that code path gets tested. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, I will add some debug information to test again. > > > > Very good, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with! > > > > Hi, Paul > > I added some debug code to run rcu torture tests: > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h > index 98e13be411af..248e13e1ccd6 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h > @@ -548,6 +548,9 @@ void do_trace_rcu_torture_read(const char *rcutorturename, > unsigned long c_old, > unsigned long c); > void rcu_gp_set_torture_wait(int duration); > +void rcutorture_fqs_set(bool on); > +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_nr(void); > +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr(void); > #else > static inline void rcutorture_get_gp_data(enum rcutorture_type test_type, > int *flags, unsigned long *gp_seq) > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c > index 9bd6856135d7..15f506c26df3 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c > @@ -1179,6 +1179,7 @@ rcu_torture_fqs(void *arg) > int oldnice = task_nice(current); > > VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("rcu_torture_fqs task started"); > + rcutorture_fqs_set(true); > do { > fqs_resume_time = jiffies + fqs_stutter * HZ; > while (time_before(jiffies, fqs_resume_time) && > @@ -1195,6 +1196,7 @@ rcu_torture_fqs(void *arg) > if (stutter_wait("rcu_torture_fqs")) > sched_set_normal(current, oldnice); > } while (!torture_must_stop()); > + rcutorture_fqs_set(false); > torture_kthread_stopping("rcu_torture_fqs"); > return 0; > } > @@ -2213,6 +2215,7 @@ rcu_torture_stats_print(void) > pr_cont("read-exits: %ld ", data_race(n_read_exits)); // Statistic. > pr_cont("nocb-toggles: %ld:%ld\n", > atomic_long_read(&n_nocb_offload), > atomic_long_read(&n_nocb_deoffload)); > + pr_cont("nr_fqs: %ld:%ld\n", rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr(), > rcutorture_fqs_nr()); > > pr_alert("%s%s ", torture_type, TORTURE_FLAG); > if (atomic_read(&n_rcu_torture_mberror) || > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index cb1caefa8bd0..9ae0c442e552 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -2299,6 +2299,38 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct rcu_data *rdp)) > } > } > > +static bool rcu_fqs_enable; > +static unsigned long fqs_valid_nr; > +static unsigned long fqs_nr; > + > +void rcutorture_fqs_set(bool on) > +{ > + WRITE_ONCE(rcu_fqs_enable, on); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcutorture_fqs_set); > + > +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_nr(void) > +{ > + return READ_ONCE(fqs_nr); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcutorture_fqs_nr); > + > +unsigned long rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr(void) > +{ > + return READ_ONCE(fqs_valid_nr); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcutorture_fqs_valid_nr); > + > +void rcutorture_fqs_account(void) > +{ > + if (rcu_fqs_enable) { > + if (READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_state) == RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS || > + READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_state) == > RCU_GP_DOING_FQS) > + WRITE_ONCE(fqs_valid_nr, fqs_valid_nr + 1); > + WRITE_ONCE(fqs_nr, fqs_nr + 1); > + } > +} > + > /* > * Force quiescent states on reluctant CPUs, and also detect which > * CPUs are in dyntick-idle mode. > @@ -2333,6 +2365,7 @@ void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void) > WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags, > READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) | RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS); > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp_old, flags); > + rcutorture_fqs_account(); > rcu_gp_kthread_wake(); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_force_quiescent_state); > > runqemu kvm nographic slirp qemuparams="-smp 4 -m 1024" > bootparams="rcutorture.fqs_duration=6 rcutorture.fqs_holdoff=1 > rcutorture.shutdown_secs=3600" -d > > original > [ 3603.574361] nr_fqs: 1635:1723 > apply this patch > [ 3603.990193] nr_fqs: 1787:1795 Very good, then it does appear that we are exercising the code, thank you for checking! Let me go find that commit again... Thanx, Paul > Thanks > Zqiang > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > Thanks > > > Zqiang > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Funnel through hierarchy to reduce memory contention. */ > > > > > rnp = raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.mynode); > > > > > for (; rnp != NULL; rnp = rnp->parent) { > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-11-07 16:53 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-11-01 3:35 [PATCH] rcu: Force quiescent states only for ongoing grace period Zqiang 2023-11-03 2:54 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-11-03 7:14 ` Z qiang 2023-11-03 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-11-07 6:30 ` Z qiang 2023-11-07 16:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®