[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZaUNCJyYREsw7O3h@pc636>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:46:32 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Z qiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] rcu: Support direct wake-up of synchronize_rcu()
users
Hello, Zqiang.
> >
> > // concurrent sr_normal_gp_cleanup work might observe this update.
> > smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
> > ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> >
> > - if (wait_tail)
> > + if (wait_tail->next)
> > queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &sr_normal_gp_cleanup);
> >
>
> I'm testing these patches :) , one question is as follows:
> Can we use (WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPR)type of workqueue to perform
> wake-up actions? avoid kworker creation failure under memory pressure, causing
> the wake-up action to be delayed.
>
I do not have any objections in not doing that, so we can add.
Thank for testing this!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists