[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=BE-TC0s++t_5H6NjVVcpNvvvubtUpJhRxPsqq2p3ZgaFo9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:15:23 -0700
From: Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.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
>
> Sandeep, thoughts?
>
I prefer to modify erofs check and contain the fix there as erofs
cares about it and it's
least invasive. For contexts where erofs cannot tell for sure, it will
always schedule kworker
(like CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n).
I will also do measurements to see if erofs should continue to check
for context and
what are the benefits.
Thanks,
Sandeep.
> Thanx, Paul
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists