[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211213131407.GD782195@lothringen>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:14:07 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>, paulmck@...nel.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, urezki@...il.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu/nocb: Handle concurrent nocb kthreads creation
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:28:45AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 12:22 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I was about to ack the patch but, should we really add code that isn't going to
> > be necessary before a long while?
>
> Yeah, I'm torn on that. In this case it's harmless enough and it makes
> the code reentrant in its own right instead of relying on the fact that
> the cpuhp code won't invoke it multiple times in parallel. So I think
> that's reasonable defensive programming.
>
The thing is that RCU code is already quite complicated. Are we even at least
sure that we'll ever make CPU hotplug allow concurrent CPU onlining/offlining?
This will require much more thoughts and a new hotplug concurrency
infrastructure that we'll need to base RCU on. IMHO it's a bit early to handle
that on hotplug individual callbacks.
But anyway, let's see what Paul thinks about it...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists