Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 May 2018 09:27:40 -0700 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: [tip/core/rcu, 05/21] rcu: Make rcu_gp_cleanup() more accurately predict need for new GP |
| |
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:24:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:37:54AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:15:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > [...] > > > > Also in rcu_future_gp_cleanup, we call: > > > > trace_rcu_future_gp(rnp, rdp, c, > > > > needmore ? TPS("CleanupMore") : TPS("Cleanup")); > > > > For this case, in the final trace event record, rnp->completed and c will be > > > > the same, since c is set to rnp->completed before calling > > > > trace_rcu_future_gp. I was thinking they should be different, do you expect > > > > them to be the same? > > > > > > Hmmm... That does look a bit inconsistent. And it currently uses > > > rnp->gp_seq instead of rnp->gp_seq_needed despite having the same > > > "CleanupMore" name. > > > > > > Looks like a review of the calls to trace_rcu_this_gp() is in order. > > > > I see you changed trace_rcu_future_gp to use trace_rcu_this_gp in 15/21.. I > > am not sure if the concern is still valid then since you seem to be correctly > > getting the future GP in those cases, except for the naming which I suggest > > be changed from 'c' to 'future_gp' just for clarity / self-documenting code. > > Indeed, "c" for "->completed" is completely outdated. ;-) > > Would you be willing to send a patch providing a better name?
Yes for sure, I'll do it soon, and will also review the gp numbers.
thanks,
- Joel
| |