On 3/8/2024 4:52 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > 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. Thanks, I rebased on it and sent a v2 (along with that other comment for the hotplug race ;-)). - Joel
