[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a7078657-823f-6283-bfeb-b5dc2c4c8d09@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:51:34 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, xiang@...nel.org,
Will Shiu <Will.Shiu@...iatek.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when
!CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
On 2023/7/13 12:27, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:02:17AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>
>>
... sorry forget some.
>
> One additional question... What is your plan for kernels built with
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n? After all, in such kernels, there is no way
> that I know of for code to determine whether it is in an RCU read-side
> critical section, holding a spinlock, or running with preemption disabled.
I'm not sure if Android (or all targetted) users use or care about
this configuration (CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n), personally I think
for such configuration we could just fall back to the workqueue
approach all the time.
Anyway, such optimization really comes from real workloads /
experience, users don't live well without such mitigation.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists