From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A9DC3A59B for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453F420578 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726294AbfHQVpv (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:45:51 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:28924 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726229AbfHQVpu (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:45:50 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7HLgVZN100403; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:45:08 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uebwcdxsv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:45:07 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7HLj7G3103944; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:45:07 -0400 Received: from ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (b.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.11]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uebwcdxse-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:45:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7HLdZje012142; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:06 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.26]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2ue9764gca-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:06 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7HLj5os12387018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:05 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B66BB2068; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DF5B205F; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.201.199]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D17116C1700; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:45:06 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: LKML , kernel-team , kernel-team , Byungchul Park , Davidlohr Bueso , Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , Byungchul Park , Rao Shoaib , rcu , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu() batching Message-ID: <20190817214506.GE28441@linux.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190814160411.58591-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190816164330.GA8320@linux.ibm.com> <20190816174429.GE10481@google.com> <20190816191629.GW28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190817035637.GY28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190817043024.GA137383@google.com> <20190817052023.GA28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190817055329.GA151631@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190817055329.GA151631@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-08-17_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908170237 Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:53:29AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:20:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:30:24AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:56:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:32:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:16 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, Joel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reworked the commit log as follows, but was then unsuccessful in > > > > > > > > working out which -rcu commit to apply it to. Could you please > > > > > > > > tell me what commit to apply this to? (Once applied, git cherry-pick > > > > > > > > is usually pretty good about handling minor conflicts.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was originally based on v5.3-rc2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was able to apply it just now to the rcu -dev branch and I pushed it here: > > > > > > > https://github.com/joelagnel/linux-kernel.git (branch paul-dev) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know if any other issues, thanks for the change log rework! > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulled and cherry-picked, thank you! > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for grins, I also pushed out a from-joel.2019.08.16a showing the > > > > > > results of the pull. If you pull that branch, then run something like > > > > > > "gitk v5.3-rc2..", and then do the same with branch "dev", comparing the > > > > > > two might illustrate some of the reasons for the current restrictions > > > > > > on pull requests and trees subject to rebase. > > > > > > > > > > Right, I did the compare and see what you mean. I guess sending any > > > > > future pull requests against Linux -next would be the best option? > > > > > > > > Hmmm... You really want to send some pull requests, don't you? ;-) > > > > > > I would be lying if I said I don't have the itch to ;-) > > > > > > > Suppose you had sent that pull request against Linux -next or v5.2 > > > > or wherever. What would happen next, given the high probability of a > > > > conflict with someone else's patch? What would the result look like? > > > > > > One hopes that the tools are able to automatically resolve the resolution, > > > however adequate re-inspection of the resulting code and testing it would be > > > needed in either case, to ensure the conflict resolution (whether manual or > > > automatic) happened correctly. > > > > I didn't ask you to hope. I instead asked you what tell me what would > > actually happen. ;-) > > > > You could actually try this by randomly grouping the patches in -rcu > > (say, placing every third patch into one of three groups), generating > > separate pull requests, and then merging the pull requests together. > > Then you wouldn't have to hope. You could instead look at it in (say) > > gitk after the pieces were put together. > > So you take whatever is worked on in 'dev' and create separate branches out > of them, then merge them together later? > > I have seen you doing these tricks and would love to get ideas from your > experiences on these. If the release dates line up, perhaps I can demo it for v5.4 at LPC. > > > IIUC, this usually depends on the maintainer's preference on which branch to > > > send patches against. > > > > > > Are you saying -rcu's dev branch is still the best option to send patches > > > against, even though it is rebased often? > > > > Sounds like we might need to discuss this face to face. > > Yes, let us talk for sure at plumbers, thank you so much! > > (Also I sent a patch just now to fix that xchg() issue). Yes, I just now squashed it in, thank you! Thanx, Paul