On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:37:56PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:23:57PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:09:29PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:04:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one > > > > in queue_rcu_work(), given that callers to queue_rcu_work() are > > > > not necessarily OK with long delays. > > > > > > So, this is fine but another thing we can do is propagating the distinction > > > through the workqueue interface so that the the choice can be made by > > > workqueue users. Would that make sense? > > > > It might well! My thought was to wait to suggest that until we found a > > real-life case where this was needed, but I have no objection to being > > proactive here. > > Oh yeah, I'm completely fine either way too. > > > But the hard part... Thought for a good name? ;-) > > If we go with a separate interface, yeah, _flush would be confusing for > workqueue. Maybe _quick or _hurry? Hmm... it'd be nice to keep the suffix > consistent with RCU. What's the relationship with > synchronize_rcu_expedited()? Would using _expedited be confusing? I expect that _expedited() would be because this has nothing whatever to do with expedited grace periods. Maybe we should have used call_rcu_hurry()? What is in a name? ;-) Thanx, Paul
