[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/0/dnmIk508sidK@lothringen>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:40:38 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
"Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] rcu: Add a minimum time for marking boot as
completed
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 03:05:02PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 02:10:30PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> The combination of sysfs manipulated by userspace and a kernel failsafe
> makes sense to me. Especially if by default triggering the failsafe
> splats. That way, bugs where userspace fails to update the sysfs file
> get caught.
>
> The non-default silent-failsafe mode is also useful to allow some power
> savings in advance of userspace getting the sysfs updating in place.
> And of course the default splatting setup can be used in internal testing
> with the release software being more tolerant of userspace foibles.
I'm wondering, this is all about CONFIG_RCU_LAZY, right? Or does also expedited
GP turned off a bit early or late on boot matter for anybody in practice?
So shouldn't we disable lazy callbacks by default when CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y and then
turn it on with "sysctl kernel.rcu.lazy=1" only whenever userspace feels ready
about it? We can still keep the current call to rcu_end_inkernel_boot().
And if suddenly disabling lazy by default is an ABI breakage we can still add
CONFIG_RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_DISABLED.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists