Re: Simplifying our RCU models

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:44:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:45:24PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:48:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, and any thoughts on how best to get feedback from the various people
> > > > who would need to reprogram their fingers?  Or is everyone already on
> > > > board with changing these various names?
> > > 
> > > I really would prefer to not see massive re-naming unless there is a
> > > really good reason for it.
> > > 
> > > I'm all for simplifying RCU from a million different versions down to
> > > just a few thousand, but I'm definitely not convinced we want to do
> > > any search-and-replace.
> > 
> > I am currently in the design (more accurately, reredesign phase) for
> > the simplification.  It is quite possible that there is a good reason
> > for at least some renaming, but in that case, I would come back later
> > with that as a separate proposal.
> 
> And I really am still working on this.  It is a bit tricky, but still
> looks doable.  More likely to be ready for 4.19 than 4.18, though.

I suppose it is well past time for an update...

I believe I have the preparation work done (famous last words!), and I am
now working on making rcutorture properly test the resulting compound RCU
read-side critical sections.  User-level testing might be necessary (and
has been for some of the preparatory work).  The ink-on-paper prototype
is starting to look promising, and I expect to get the corresponding
prototype patch posted by the end of this month.

A bit trickier than I expected (as usual), but still looking doable.

							Thanx, Paul