[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8e1b75f-e631-4793-9130-472909264406@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:36:10 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>
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
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 12:15:23PM -0700, Sandeep Dhavale wrote:
> >
> > 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.
At the end of the day, I guess it is Gao Xiang's and Chao Yu's decision.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists