Message-ID: <6915da9a-6cd7-c2a9-776d-963949a413c@inria.fr>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2025 00:32:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, 
    Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, 
    Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>, 
    Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>, 
    Chuck Wolber <chuckwolber@...il.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, 
    Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
    Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, 
    Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>, 
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Linux-kernel code accessibility



On Sat, 27 Dec 2025, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 07:16:28AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Dec 2025, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 02:22:17PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > > Agreed, but knowing what the function is doing should give you some idea of
> > > > > how it is doing it.
> > > > >
> > > > >   "Loop doing repeated quiescent-state forcing until the grace period ends."
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the only description of "what the function is doing", but it gives you
> > > > > no clue to why it's using those magic numbers. There should be comments
> > > > > about how the magic numbers relate to the what.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, but rcu_gp_fqs_loop() is a static, internal function.  I agree
> > > > that better documentation would be usefui for people who want to
> > > > modify the internals of the RCU infrastructure, but it's not something
> > > > that should be in kernel documentation for newcomers to kernel
> > > > development.
> > > >
> > > > When we talk about making the kernel code more accessible, it's really
> > > > important to keep in mind that different audiences may have different
> > > > needs, and too much information can be just as confusing as too
> > > > little.  It seems likely that most newcomers aren't going to be
> > > > looking to make changes to important systems like RCU.
> > > >
> > > > That being said, even though most newcomers aren't probably going to
> > > > be making changes to file systems, as a file system maintainer I
> > > > admittedly to have a vested interest in making easier for
> > > > intermediate-level kernel developers who might take an interest to
> > > > ext4 development to have an easy path to do so.  So I get where Paul
> > > > is coming from.
> > > >
> > > > When we're talking about making the kernel code more accessible, we
> > > > need need to be very explicit about which target audiences we are
> > > > targetting, because the strategies might be different for different
> > > > readers.
> > >
> > > Here is how I group them:
> > >
> > > 1.	RCU users in the Linux kernel.	Largish group.	Addressed by much
> > > 	of the Documentation/RCU contents, the occasional LWN article,
> > > 	blog posts, and by RCU experts in various subsystems.
> > >
> > > 2.	RCU users in userspace.  Modest group, but growing.  LWN articles,
> > > 	blog posts, an academic paper or three, and a number of people
> > > 	who have implemented some form or another of RCU.
> > >
> > > 3.	Userspace RCU implementations.  Smallish group, but there are
> > > 	quite a few implementations out there.  I don't deliberately
> > > 	target anything to this group, but it is quite possible that
> > > 	some of the writings for the other groups have been helpful.
> > >
> > > 4.	Linux-kernel RCU implementation.  Small group, though a largish
> > > 	one if we include all the people who have gotten at least one
> > > 	patch accepted.  Comments, Linux-kernel RCU Design Documents [1],
> > > 	Documentation/RCU/Design, a few LWN articles, a few blog posts,
> > > 	and the several regular developers and maintainers.
> > >
> > > And I would like to think that Section 9.5 of "Is Parallel Programming
> > > Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It?" [2] has been helpful.
> > >
> > > What groups should I be adding?
> >
> > In the case of the scheduler, I observe some unexpected behavior, and then
> > I have the feeling that I backtrack through the code coming from a
> > direction that was not anticipated by the person who wrote the comments
> > (sometimes inline comments, more likely the comments in the commit tht
> > introduced the line I am wondering about).  But I'm not sure how to place
> > RCU.  My impression is that it has a more monolithic implementation, and
> > that I would only ever consider it to be a block box, not something I
> > would debug my way into.  But perhaps people felt that way about the
> > scheduler functions I am looking at as well.  Over time, there have surely
> > been performance improvements in RCU as well.  It seems hard to anticipate
> > what information people will need.
>
> Although RCU does use heuristics, I would say that its operation adapts
> less to dynamic conditions than does the scheduler.  RCU is mostly an
> observer of state, while the scheduler's job is mostly a controller
> of state.
>
> > Maybe one could consider that division by a constant is sufficiently rare
> > in the kernel that it should always be documented?
>
> If it is (for example) division by 10 in code that converts binary
> integers to char, or code computing an average, I would not expect a
> comment to be needed.
>
> But I do feel the need to ask what division you are referring to.  ;-)

j = (j + 2) / 3;

>
> 							Thanx, Paul
>
> > julia
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GCdQC8SDbb54W1shjEXqGZ0Rq8a6kIeYutdSIajfpLA/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#heading=h.ytgz5i5df43s
> > >
> > > [2] https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/perfbook/perfbook.html
> > >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists