On 1/21/2026 2:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 02:13:56PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/21/2026 2:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 06:12:20PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>> These are a few nocb related cleanup patches for the next merge window.
>>>>
>>>> Also Frederic please object to the second patch ("Remove dead callback
>>>> overload
>>>> handling") if you would like, but I think based on our discussion I have
>>>> implemented your suggestion, so it should be good.
>>>>
>>>> Changes from v2:
>>>> - Dropped patch 2 "Add warning if no rcuog wake up attempt happened during
>>>> overload" as it was not needed since we removed the dead CB overload
>>>> handling.
>>>> - Replaced "Add warning to detect if overload advancement is ever useful"
>>>> with
>>>> "Remove dead callback overload handling" per Frederic's feedback -
>>>> instead of
>>>> adding a warning, just remove the dead code path entirely.
>>>>
>>>> nocb rcutorture scenarios passed overnight testing on my system.
>>>
>>> I reverted three of your earlier patches in order to apply this, only
>>> one of which I am really confident in. Please check my -rcu tree to see
>>> if any of the three should be added back in, and I am starting tests in
>>> the meantime.Age Commit message (Expand) Author Files Lines
>>
>> Per your latest /dev branch
>> (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/log/?h=dev),
>> you have the latest 3 patches:
>>
>> Extract nocb_defer_wakeup_cancel() helperdev Joel Fernandes 1 -8/+11
>> rcu/nocb: Remove dead callback overload handling Joel Fernandes 1
>> -12/+0
>> rcu/nocb: Remove unnecessary WakeOvfIsDeferred wake path Joel Fernandes
>> 3 -36/+18
>
> Thank you for checking!
>
> And just to double-check, all of the patches that I reverted are obsolete,
> correct?
Yes, those patches were from v2. You have correctly applied the latest v3
version.
thanks,
--
Joel Fernandes
