On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 12:45:23PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 9:33 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > index 84daaa33ea0ab..4ba96e2cfa405 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> ...
>
> > +static inline int srcu_read_lock_lite(struct srcu_struct *ssp) __acquires(ssp)
> > +{
> > + int retval;
> > +
> > + srcu_check_read_flavor(ssp, SRCU_READ_FLAVOR_LITE);
> > + retval = __srcu_read_lock_lite(ssp);
> > + rcu_try_lock_acquire(&ssp->dep_map);
> > + return retval;
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > index 602b4b8c4b891..bab888e86b9bb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > +int __srcu_read_lock_lite(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > +{
> > + int idx;
> > +
> > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "RCU must be watching srcu_read_lock_lite().");
> > + idx = READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx) & 0x1;
> > + this_cpu_inc(ssp->sda->srcu_lock_count[idx].counter); /* Y */
> > + barrier(); /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */
> > + return idx;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock_lite);
>
> The use cases where smp_mb() penalty is noticeable probably will notice
> the cost of extra call too.
> Can the main part be in srcu.h as well to make it truly "lite" ?
> Otherwise we'd have to rely on compilers doing LTO which may or may not happen.
I vaguely recall #include issues for old-times srcu_read_lock() and
srcu_read_unlock(), but I will try it and see what happens.
In the meantime, if you are too curious for your own good... ;-)
One way to check the performance is to work in the other direction. For
example, add ndelay(10) or similar to the current srcu_read_lock_lite()
implementation and seeing if this is visible at the system level.
Thanx, Paul
