Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rcu/sync: Remove custom check for reader-section

[Joel Fernandes]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:32:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:35:59PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:00:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > The rcu/sync code was doing its own check whether we are in a reader
> > > section. With RCU consolidating flavors and the generic helper added in
> > > this series, this is no longer need. We can just use the generic helper
> > > and it results in a nice cleanup.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Hi Oleg,
> > Slightly unrelated to the patch,
> > I tried hard to understand this comment below in percpu_down_read() but no dice.
> > 
> > I do understand how rcu sync and percpu rwsem works, however the comment
> > below didn't make much sense to me. For one, there's no readers_fast anymore
> > so I did not follow what readers_fast means. Could the comment be updated to
> > reflect latest changes?
> > Also could you help understand how is a writer not able to change
> > sem->state and count the per-cpu read counters at the same time as the
> > comment tries to say?
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * We are in an RCU-sched read-side critical section, so the writer
> > 	 * cannot both change sem->state from readers_fast and start checking
> > 	 * counters while we are here. So if we see !sem->state, we know that
> > 	 * the writer won't be checking until we're past the preempt_enable()
> > 	 * and that once the synchronize_rcu() is done, the writer will see
> > 	 * anything we did within this RCU-sched read-size critical section.
> > 	 */
> > 
> > Also,
> > I guess we could get rid of all of the gp_ops struct stuff now that since all
> > the callbacks are the same now. I will post that as a follow-up patch to this
> > series.
> 
> Hello, Joel,
> 
> Oleg has a set of patches updating this code that just hit mainline
> this week.  These patches get rid of the code that previously handled
> RCU's multiple flavors.  Or are you looking at current mainline and
> me just missing your point?
> 

Hi Paul,
You are right on point. I have a bad habit of not rebasing my trees. In this
case the feature branch of mine in concern was based on v5.1. Needless to
say, I need to rebase my tree.

Yes, this sync clean up patch does conflict when I rebase, but other patches
rebase just fine.

The 2 options I see are:
1. Let us drop this patch for now and I resend it later.
2. I resend all patches based on Linus's master branch.

thanks,

- Joel