linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/30] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n, PREEMPT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87msr4f8cj.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:16:12 -0700
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ankur Arora
 <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, paulmck@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
        jpoimboe@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, jgross@...e.com,
        andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, bristot@...nel.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
        glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com,
        mattst88@...il.com, krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/30] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n,
 PREEMPT_COUNT=y


Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> writes:

> Hi, Thomas,
> Thanks for your reply! I replied below.
>
> On 3/11/2024 3:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 11 2024 at 11:25, Joel Fernandes wrote:

   [ ... ]

>> What's wrong with the combination of PREEMPT_AUTO=y and PREEMPT_RCU=n?
>> Paul and me agreed long ago that this needs to be supported.
>
> There's nothing wrong with it. Its just a bit quirky (again just a point of
> view), that for a configuration that causes preemption (similar to
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y), that PREEMPT_RCU can be disabled. After all, again with
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, PREEMPT_RCU cannot be currently disabled.

I think the argument was that PREEMPT_RCU=y is suboptimal for certain
workloads, and those configurations might prefer the stronger
forward-progress guarantees that PREEMPT_RCU=n provides.

See this:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/73ecce1c-d321-4579-b892-13b1e0a0620a@paulmck-laptop/T/#m6aab5a6fd5f1fd4c3dc9282ce564e64f2fa6cdc3

and the surrounding thread.

Thanks

--
ankur