Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rcu: Clean up rcu_init_nohz() by removing unnecessary statements | From | Byungchul Park <> | Date | Fri, 2 Mar 2018 09:01:19 +0900 |
| |
On 3/1/2018 3:41 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:04:55PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: >> Since the commit 44c65ff2e3b0(rcu: Eliminate NOCBs CPU-state Kconfig >> options) made nocb-cpus identified only through the rcu_nocbs= boot >> parameter, we don't have to care NOCBs CPU-state Kconfig options >> anymore, which means now we can just rely on rcu_nocb_mask to >> decide whether going ahead in rcu_init_nohz(). >> >> Remove the deprecated code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> > > Good catch! However, you missed a (relatively harmless) bug in my commit > 44c65ff2e3b0, namely that if neither the nohz_full= nor the rcu_nocbs= > kernel boot parameters specify any CPUs, we don't need to allocate > rcu_nocb_mask. (That is, when both of those parameters are omitted.) > > Now, if the rcu_nocbs= kernel boot parameter was specified, we know that > rcu_nocb_mask was already allocated in rcu_nocb_setup(). So in > rcu_init_nohz() we only need to do the allocation if NO_HZ_FULL needs > some NOCBs CPUs, that is, when tick_nohz_full_running and when there > is at least one CPU specified in tick_nohz_full_mask.
Why didn't I catch it in advance? :)
> So the change that is actually needed is to reverse the initialization > of need_rcu_nocb_mask, that is, to initialize it to false rather than > to true. I annotated your patch with my reasoning and have a patch > below with your Reported-by. Please take a look and let me know what > you think.
No doubt. I agree with you.
Acked-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> If I am not too confused, the only effect of this bug was to needlessly > allocate rcu_nocb_mask and to initialize it to all zeros bits, but please > let me know if I missed something.
I think so as you.
-- Thanks, Byungchul
| |