On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 06:38:37PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 04:05:15PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 04:06:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 06:52:14PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 6:48 PM Joel Fernandes (Google) > > > > <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In the synchronize_rcu() common case, we will have less than > > > > > SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP number of users per GP. Waking up the kworker > > > > > is pointless just to free the last injected wait head since at that point, > > > > > all the users have already been awakened. > > > > > > > > > > Introduce a new counter to track this and prevent the wakeup in the > > > > > common case. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Forgot to mention, this is based on the latest RCU -dev branch and > > > > passes light rcutorture testing on all configs. Heavier rcutorture > > > > testing (60 minutes) was performed on TREE03. > > > > > > Very good, thank you! > > > > > > Uladzislau, could you please pull this into the next series you send? > > > I can then replace your commits in -rcu with the updated series. > > > > > Absolutely. I will go through it and send out the next version! > > > > Joel, i sent out the v6: [PATCH v6 0/6] Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency(v6) > > Could you please rework the patch on latest tip once the series i sent is > settled on Paul's dev? It is there now. Thanx, Paul > I have not sent your patch because it is not cleanly applied and needs some > review. > > Thank you in advance! > > -- > Uladzislau Rezki
