[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221210213412.GF4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 13:34:12 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Karol Herbst <karolherbst@...il.com>,
Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [for-next][PATCH 13/25] x86/mm/kmmio: Use
rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace()
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 01:34:25PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:47:53 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > Note, the preempt_disable() is still needed as it uses preempt_enable_no_resched().
> > >
>
> ...
>
> > Executable code can be the best form of comment. ;-)
> >
> > This does mess with preempt_count() redundantly, but the overhead from
> > that should be way down in the noise.
>
> I was going to remove it, but then I realized that it would be a functional
> change, as from the comment above, it uses "preempt_enable_no_resched(),
> which there is not a rcu_read_unlock_sched() variant.
If this happens often enough, it might be worth adding something like
rcu_read_unlock_sched_no_resched(), but we clearly are not there yet.
Especially not with a name like that! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>
> Thanks! I'll add this to the commit.
>
> -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists