From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
joel@joelfernandes.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make rcu_normal_after_boot writable on RT
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:44:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210806174411.GQ4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210806080455.wkhlebgt7howjcrk@linutronix.de>
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 10:04:55AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-08-05 09:03:37 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Makes sense to me!
> >
> > But would another of the -rt people be willing to give an Acked-by?
> > For example, maybe they would prefer this kernel boot parameter to be
> > exposed only if (!PREEMPT_RT || NO_HZ_FULL). Or are there !NO_HZ_FULL
> > situations where rcu_normal_after_boot makes sense?
>
> Julia crafted that "rcu_normal_after_boot = 1" for RT after we had more
> and more synchronize_rcu_expedited() users popping up. I would like to
> keep that part (default value) since it good to have for most users.
>
> I don't mind removing CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT part here if there are legitimate
> use cases for using "rcu_normal_after_boot = 0".
> Paul suggested initially to restrict that option for PREEMPT_RT and I
> would follow here Paul's guidance to either remove it or restrict it to
> NO_HZ_FULL in RT's case (as suggested).
Given what I know now, I suggest the following:
o Restrict the option to !PREEMPT_RT unless NO_HZ_FULL.
Maybe "!defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || defined(CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL)".
If there is some non-NO_HZ_FULL PREEMPT_RT configuration that
tolerates expedited grace periods, this would need to change.
o Change the permissions from "0" to "0444", if desired. If you
would rather not, I can do this in a follow-up patch. (No idea
why I let such an ugly serviceability issue through, but the
previous pair of module_param() instances have the same problem.)
Anything I am missing?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-06 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-05 8:01 [PATCH] rcu: Make rcu_normal_after_boot writable on RT Juri Lelli
2021-08-05 16:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-05 21:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-06 7:41 ` Juri Lelli
2021-08-06 8:04 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-06 17:44 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2021-08-09 8:37 ` Juri Lelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210806174411.GQ4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).