On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:46 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 05:58:55PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Hello, Joel!
> >
> > > [....]
> > > > > > > + Use rcutree.enable_rcu_lazy=0 to turn it off at boot time.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +config RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_OFF
> > > > > > > + bool "Turn RCU lazy invocation off by default"
> > > > > > > + depends on RCU_LAZY
> > > > > > > + default n
> > > > > > > + help
> > > > > > > + Allows building the kernel with CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y yet keep it default
> > > > > > > + off. Boot time param rcutree.enable_rcu_lazy=1 can be used to switch
> > > > > > > + it back on.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > config RCU_DOUBLE_CHECK_CB_TIME
> > > > > > > bool "RCU callback-batch backup time check"
> > > > > > > depends on RCU_EXPERT
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > index 3ac3c846105f..8b7675624815 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > @@ -2719,6 +2719,9 @@ __call_rcu_common(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func, bool lazy_in)
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_LAZY
> > > > > > > +static bool enable_rcu_lazy __read_mostly = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_OFF);
> > > > > > > +module_param(enable_rcu_lazy, bool, 0444);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > * call_rcu_hurry() - Queue RCU callback for invocation after grace period, and
> > > > > > > * flush all lazy callbacks (including the new one) to the main ->cblist while
> > > > > > > @@ -2744,6 +2747,8 @@ void call_rcu_hurry(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > > > > > > __call_rcu_common(head, func, false);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_hurry);
> > > > > > > +#else
> > > > > > > +#define enable_rcu_lazy false
> > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > @@ -2792,7 +2797,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_hurry);
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > - __call_rcu_common(head, func, IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_LAZY));
> > > > > > > + __call_rcu_common(head, func, enable_rcu_lazy);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, it makes sense. Especially for devices/systems where it is hard
> > > > > > to recompile the kernel and deploy it. For example, Google and GKI approach.
> > > > >
> > > > > My concerns had nothing to do with recompiling the kernel. Passing a
> > > > > boot parameter (without a kernel compile) can just as well
> > > > > default-disable the feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think what Qais is saying is that passing a boot parameter is itself
> > > > > a hassle in Android (something I did not know about) because of GKI
> > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > That is true. Doing:
> > > >
> > > > echo 1 > /sys/.../enable_lazy
> > > >
> > > > is a way how to make it easy and flexible.
> > >
> > > Hey Vlad, are you suggesting that the boot parameter be made to
> > > support runtime? We can keep that for later as it may get complicated.
> > > Qais's boot parameter is designed only for boot time.
> > >
> > No problem. Yes, i meant a runtime one. But as you stated there might
> > be hidden issues witch we are not aware of yet.
>
> My current thought is that Qais's version currently in -rcu for
> the merge window after next (v6.9) suits our current situation.
> But if we are eventually able to support runtime changes to this new
> rcutree.enable_rcu_lazy module parameter via simplification to the
> rcu_nocb_try_bypass() function (or maybe a better analysis of it),
> then at that point it would be good to allow this module parameter to
> be changed via sysfs at runtime.
Yes, that's right.
> Does that make sense, or am I missing some aspect or use case?
No you are not missing anything.
Thanks.
