lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 06/18] rcu: Introduce call_rcu_lazy() API implementation
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> +
> >> + // We had CBs in the bypass list before. There is nothing else to do if:
> >> + // There were only non-lazy CBs before, in this case, the bypass timer
> >
> > Kind of misleading. I would replace "There were only non-lazy CBs before" with
> > "There was at least one non-lazy CBs before".
>
> I really mean "There were only non-lazy CBs ever queued in the bypass list
> before". That's the bypass_is_lazy variable. So I did not fully understand your
> suggested comment change.

I may well be missing something but to me it seems that:

bypass_is_lazy = all bypass callbacks are lazy
!bypass_is_lazy = there is at least one non-lazy bypass callback

And indeed as long as there is at least one non-lazy callback, we don't
want to rely on the LAZY timer.

Am I overlooking something?

>
> >> + // or GP-thread will handle the CBs including any new lazy ones.
> >> + // Or, the new CB is lazy and the old bypass-CBs were also lazy. In this
> >> + // case the old lazy timer would have been setup. When that expires,
> >> + // the new lazy one will be handled.
> >> + if (ncbs && (!bypass_is_lazy || lazy)) {
> >> local_irq_restore(flags);
> >> } else {
> >> // No-CBs GP kthread might be indefinitely asleep, if so, wake.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-07 12:04    [W:0.234 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site