From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753908AbbGBQvB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 2 Jul 2015 12:51:01 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49178 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753616AbbGBQuy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 2 Jul 2015 12:50:54 -0400
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:50:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/14] rcu: Abstract sequence counting
 from synchronize_sched_expedited()
Message-ID: <20150702165032.GC19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150630222530.GA12044@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1435703154-14659-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1435703154-14659-5-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150701102717.GT19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150701221804.GW3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150702085041.GI25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150702141330.GI3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150702141330.GI3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 07:13:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > Its really time for them to stop wanking and stare reality in the face.
> 
> Indeed, I have been and will be continuing to make myself unpopular with
> that topic.  ;-)

Thanks!!

> > > > > +/* Wrapper functions for expedited grace periods.  */
> > > > > +static void rcu_exp_gp_seq_start(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	rcu_seq_start(&rsp->expedited_sequence);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +static void rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	rcu_seq_end(&rsp->expedited_sequence);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +static unsigned long rcu_exp_gp_seq_snap(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	return rcu_seq_snap(&rsp->expedited_sequence);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +static bool rcu_exp_gp_seq_done(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long s)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	return rcu_seq_done(&rsp->expedited_sequence, s);
> > > > > +}
> > > > 
> > > > This is wrappers for wrappers sake? Why?
> > > 
> > > For _rcu_barrier(), as noted in the commit log.
> > 
> > Yes it said; but why? Surely _rcu_barrier() can do the
> > ->expedited_sequence thing itself, that hardly seems worthy of a
> > wrapper.
> 
> Ah, you want synchronize_rcu_expedited() and synchronize_sched_expedited()
> to use rcu_seq_start() and friends directly.  I can certainly do that.

Well, 'want' is a strong word, I was just questioning the use of these
trivial wrappers.