Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:10:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:52:38AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > 
> > 	Hello,
> > 
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
> > 
> > > > > +static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	if (need_resched()) {
> > > > 
> > > > 	Ops, it should be without above need_resched.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, to clarify, just this:
> > > 
> > > static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > > {
> > > 	rcu_read_unlock();
> > > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > 	cond_resched();
> > > #endif
> > > 	rcu_read_lock();
> > > }
> > 
> > 	Yes, thanks!
> 
> OK, now I'm confused.. PREEMPT_RCU would preempt in any case, so why bother
> dropping rcu_read_lock() at all?

Good point, I was assuming that the goal was to let grace periods end
as well as to allow preemption.  The momentary dropping out of the
RCU read-side critical section allows the grace periods to end.

> That is; the thing that makes sense to me is:
> 
> static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> 	if (need_resched()) {
> 		rcu_read_unlock();
> 		cond_resched();
> 		rcu_read_lock();
> 	}
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
> }
> 
> That would have an rcu_read_lock() break and voluntary preemption point for
> non-preemptible RCU and not bother with the stuff for preemptible RCU.

If the only goal is to allow preemption, and if long grace periods are
not a concern, then this alternate approach would work fine as well.

Of course, both approaches assume that the caller is in a place
where having all RCU-protected data disappear is OK!

							Thanx, Paul