On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 01:52:15PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:57:33 +0000 > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * Use rcu_tasks_trace to synchronize updates? > > Yes. I think I wanted both. The above to make sure it covers all cases > where something could be preempted, and a case for those covered when RCU > isn't watching (which always has preemption disabled). > > My mistake was I thought synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() did both. But I just > found out recently that it is not a superset of synchronize_rcu_tasks(). > > But it really needs it in every location that synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() > is called. Should any RCU Tasks Rude grace-period request also wait for an RCU Tasks grace period? I would feel better about proposing this, especially for call_rcu_tasks_rude(), if RCU Tasks Rude was not supposed to be going away after all the noinstr tags are in place. Thanx, Paul
