Re: [PATCH 03/13] srcutree: Add reader-free fastpath to synchronize_srcu_atomic()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 11:26:06PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-09-08 at 13:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 03:58:19PM +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> > > From: Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > synchronize_srcu_atomic() is restricted to srcu_read_lock_atomic() and
> > > srcu_read_unlock_atomic(), whose read-side critical sections disable
> > > preemption.  In the common case where there are no readers at all, the
> > > grace period therefore need not do the index flip.  Add a fastpath
> > > that sums both ranks of the per-CPU ->srcu_ctrs[] counters and, if the
> > > lock counts match the unlock counts on both ranks, ends the grace
> > > period immediately, skipping the srcu_advance_state() scans, mirroring
> > > the similar Tiny SRCU fastpath.
> > > 
> > > Correctness requires the counter-sum proof to follow the grace-period
> > > anchor written by srcu_gp_start(); placing it before the anchor could
> > > let this grace period miss a pre-existing reader and return without
> > > waiting for it.  The smp_mb() between the unlock and lock sums pairs
> > > with the smp_mb() in __srcu_read_lock().  The grace period is ended
> > > manually under ->lock and ->srcu_atomic_gp_flag.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Adding David Woodhouse on CC.
> > 
> > David, does this provide appropriate performance in your use case?
> 
> Compared with the early bail that I had before, there's a *slight*
> shift into the higher-latency buckets as expected, but definitely not
> enough that I care. We're doing this whole thing to eliminate the
> multi-millisecond p100 latencies that happen when we invoke the
> workqueue, and the differences we're looking at in the table below are
> *well* below what we care about:
> 
> 
>   ┌─────────────┬───────────────────┬───────────────────┬───────┐
>   │   bucket    │  try-first (#10)  │    Kunwu (#11)    │   Δ   │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [0,1µs)     │ 5,338,474 (60.8%) │ 4,953,657 (56.8%) │ −7%   │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [1,2)       │ 1,077,998         │ 1,087,133         │ ≈     │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [2,4)       │ 803,244           │ 790,489           │ ≈     │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [4,8)       │ 811,708           │ 880,673           │ +8%   │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [8,16)      │ 366,183           │ 597,443           │ +63%  │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [16,32)     │ 338,731           │ 361,243           │ +7%   │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [32,64)     │ 14,290            │ 28,823            │ ×2.0  │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [64,128)    │ 2,549             │ 3,655             │ +43%  │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [128,256)   │ 555               │ 783               │ +41%  │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [256,512)   │ 456               │ 625               │ +37%  │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ [512µs+)    │ 13                │ 8                 │ ≈     │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ max         │ 1.07ms            │ 1.56ms            │ +46%  │
>   ├─────────────┼───────────────────┼───────────────────┼───────┤
>   │ total walks │ 8,777,514         │ 8,723,453         │ −0.6% │
>   └─────────────┴───────────────────┴───────────────────┴───────┘
> 
>   (192-CPU PREEMPT_RT host, 12 concurrent gfn_to_pfn_cache invalidation
>   reproducers, 300-second windows; each "walk" is one invalidation drain
>   which includes the synchronize_srcu_atomic() call. #10/#11 are just
>   local build numbers.)

Thank you very much!!!

I am interpreting this to mean that Kunwu's current approach does what
you need, so that we can keep current get_state_synchronize_srcu()
and poll_state_synchronize_srcu() semantics.

							Thanx, Paul