Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1714068

Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 02:49:09PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > this change - or can I pick this up into the scheduler tree?
> > 
> > Timely question!  ;-)
> > 
> > My current plan is to send you a pull request like the following later
> > today, Pacific Time (but rebased adding Steve Rostedt's Reviewed-by).
> > This patch is on one of the branches, currently v4.13-rc2..93d8d7a12090
> > ("arch: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions") in my
> > -rcu tree.
> > 
> > Ah, and v4.13-rc2..7391304c4959 ("membarrier: Expedited private command")
> > is mostly outside of RCU as well.
> > 
> > Since I will be rebasing and remerging anyway, if you would prefer that I
> > split the spin_unlock_wait() and/or misc branches out, I am happy to do so.
> > If I don't hear otherwise, though, I will send all seven branches using
> > my usual approach.
> > 
> > So, if you want something different than my usual approach, please just
> > let me know!
> 
> No, all branches together sounds good to me!

Very good, will do!

> If you are rebasing anyway, here are some (very minor) commit title nits I noticed:
> 
> >       swait: add idle variants which don't contribute to load average
> >       rcu: use idle versions of swait to make idle-hack clear
> 
> Capitalization.

Will fix!  Believe it or not, I looked for these...  :-/

> >       membarrier: Expedited private command
> 
> Should start with a verb.

OK, something like "Provide expedited private command".

> >       doc: RCU documentation update
> 
>   doc: Update RCU documentation
> 
> ?

Works for me!

> >       doc: No longer allowed to use rcu_dereference on non-pointers
> 
>   doc: Describe that it is no longer allowed to use rcu_dereference() on non-pointers
> 
> ?

Will add a real commit log.

> >       torture: Add --kconfig argument to kvm.sh
> >       rcutorture: Don't wait for kernel when all builds fail
> 
> Is there a difference between 'torture: ' and 'rcutorture: ' prefixes?

Yes, rcutorture is specific to RCU, while torture would also affect
locktorture.

Ah, and if I am delaying the cond_resched() patch, I need to retest,
which means I will send you the pull request tomorrow or Monday, depending
on how the testing goes.

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
> 

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock_wait()  with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-15 18:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace  spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-08-16 17:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace  spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 17:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace  spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-08-17 10:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace  spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 14:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace  spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-08-17 14:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace  spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 16:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace  spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-08-17 17:40 +0200

csiph-web