[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjoxIhtCw4Pov0VH@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 15:48:18 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 18/27] rcu: Rename rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since() into
rcu_watching_changed_since()
Le Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:17:22AM +0200, Valentin Schneider a écrit :
> The context_tracking.state RCU_DYNTICKS subvariable has been renamed to
> RCU_WATCHING, the dynticks prefix can go.
>
> Furthermore, the "in_eqs_since" part confuses me, as IIUC this only checks
> for a change in watching/eqs state, not that RCU transitionned *into* a
> EQS after the snapshot was taken.
>
> e.g. if
> snap = 0b1000 (EQS)
> and the following rcu_watching_snap(CPU) is:
> 0b1100 (watching)
> then
> rcu_watching_in_eqs_since(rdp, snap) -> true
>
> but because RCU was already in EQS at the time of the
> snap - it hasn't entered EQS "since" the snap was taken.
>
> Update the name to reflect that we're only looking at watching/EQS
> transitions, not specifically transitions into EQS.
Indeed in practice the function only checks a change. But semantically it really
checks a trip to eqs because this function is only ever called after a failing
call to rcu_dynticks_in_eqs().
So not sure about that one rename. Paul?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists