On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:50:17PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:40:33PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:29:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:18:04PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 03:21:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 01:51:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:32:32PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find the next improved version of call_rcu_lazy() attached. The main > > > > > > > difference between the previous versions is that: > > > > > > > - In v2 rcu_barrier is fixed to not hang (I found this to be due to a missing > > > > > > > GP thread wakeup), now I am limiting this wake up only to rcu_barrier() as > > > > > > > requested by Paul. > > > > > > > - Fixed checkpatch and build robot issues. > > > > > > > - Some more changes to 'lazy' parameter passing and consolidation of segcblist > > > > > > > functions. > > > > > > > - more testing via rcutorture and rcuscale. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! What I am going to do is to pull these into an experimental > > > > > > not-for-mainline branch and run the usual set of rcutorture tests. > > > > > > I will then take a look at the patches. > > > > > > > > > > And there were a few conflicts with the nocb patch series in -rcu. > > > > > The allegedly conflict-resolved series is here: joel.2022.07.14a > > > > > Please let me know if I messed something up. > > > > > > > > Thanks, it looks Ok. There is one robot fix for hexagon's arch where I think > > > > TREE_RCU is disabled, could you apply the diff below to patch 1/5 ? > > > > > > > > Or, I can also just keep it in my version of 1/5 to go out with the next rev. > > > > > > Given that I am not testing on hexagon, I will let you fix this one on > > > the next rev. If someone out there is testing this branch on hexagon, > > > they should feel free to apply your patch locally. ;-) > > > > I am pretty sure this is the feature that was going to make Hexagon widely > > adopted, but your call ;-) Then they should be highly motivated to apply your patch. ;-) > Jokes apart, I am sure this feature will be useful to a lot of folks and > architectures but lets keep this diff for the next revision as you said. > > Actually never heard of Hexagon till today... 32-bit and 4x VLIW, Cool! : > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualcomm_Hexagon Indeed, there are still about 20 different types of processors running Linux. Thanx, Paul
