Re: [tip/core/rcu, 05/21] rcu: Make rcu_gp_cleanup() more accurately predict need for new GP

[Joel Fernandes]

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completed" is completely outdated.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