Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-06 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:24:15PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 18:17:07 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 08:40:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:35:01 -0700 > > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > > > > > > + /

Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 18:17:07 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 08:40:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:35:01 -0700 > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > > > > + // Don't use ->nocb_bypass during early boot. > > > > > > > > Very minor n

Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-06 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 08:40:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:35:01 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > > + // Don't use ->nocb_bypass during early boot. > > > > > > Very minor nit: comment style should be /* */ > > > > I thought that Linus said that "/

Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:35:01 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > + // Don't use ->nocb_bypass during early boot. > > > > Very minor nit: comment style should be /* */ > > I thought that Linus said that "//" was now OK. Am I confused? Have a link? -- Steve

Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-06 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 08:03:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:14:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Use of the rcu_data structure's segmented ->cblist for no-CBs CPUs > > takes advantage of unrelated grace periods, thus reducing the memory > > footprint in the fa

Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-06 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 08:03:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:14:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Use of the rcu_data structure's segmented ->cblist for no-CBs CPUs > > takes advantage of unrelated grace periods, thus reducing the memory > > footprint in the fa

Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-06 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:14:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Use of the rcu_data structure's segmented ->cblist for no-CBs CPUs > takes advantage of unrelated grace periods, thus reducing the memory > footprint in the face of floods of call_rcu() invocations. However, > the ->cblist field i

[PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing

2019-08-02 Thread Paul E. McKenney
Use of the rcu_data structure's segmented ->cblist for no-CBs CPUs takes advantage of unrelated grace periods, thus reducing the memory footprint in the face of floods of call_rcu() invocations. However, the ->cblist field is a more-complex rcu_segcblist structure which must be protected via locki