On 10/04/24 12:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:30:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> Le Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:53:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
>> > I am having a hard time getting too excited about the name. I could
>> > suggest CT_RCU_WATCHING_IDX, but that isn't exactly the shortest
>> > possible name.
>>
>> I really like CT_RCU_WATCHING. It says everything. The _IDX isn't even
>> needed after all. What do you think?
>
> Works for me!
>
Sounds good to me too, thanks for the suggestion :)
Now, what about ct_dynticks() & friends? I was about to do:
-static __always_inline int ct_dynticks(void)
+static __always_inline int ct_rcu_watching(void)
{
- return atomic_read(this_cpu_ptr(&context_tracking.state)) & CT_DYNTICKS_MASK;
+ return atomic_read(this_cpu_ptr(&context_tracking.state)) & CT_RCU_WATCHING_MASK;
}
... but then realised that there's more siblings to the rcu_dynticks*()
family;
AFAICT dynticks_nesting could also get the rcu_watching prefix treatment,
`rcu_dynticks_task_exit() -> rcu_watching_task_exit` doesn't sound as
obvious though. The rcu_dyntick event probably can't be renamed either.
I'm not sure how far to take the renaming; seeing things like:
notrace bool rcu_is_watching(void)
{
bool ret;
preempt_disable_notrace();
ret = !rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs();
preempt_enable_notrace();
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_is_watching);
makes me think most of the rcu_*dynticks / rcu_*eqs stuff could get an
rcu_watching facelift?
Here are my current considerations for identifiers used in context_tracking
in decreasing order of confidence:
| Old | New |
|---------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------|
| RCU_DYNTICKS_IDX | CT_RCU_WATCHING |
| RCU_DYNTICKS_MASK | CT_RCU_WATCHING_MASK |
| context_tracking.dynticks_nesting | context_tracking.rcu_watching_nesting |
| context_tracking.dynticks_nmi_nesting | context_tracking.rcu_watching_nmi_nesting [bit of a mouthful] |
| rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs() | rcu_watching_curr_cpu() [with an added negation] |
|---------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------|
| TRACE_EVENT_RCU(rcu_dyntick, | [Can't change?] |
|---------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------|
| rcu_dynticks_task_enter() | rcu_watching_task_enter() |
| rcu_dynticks_task_exit() | rcu_watching_task_exit() |
| rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter() | rcu_watching_task_trace_enter() |
| rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit() | rcu_watching_task_trace_exit() |
Thoughts?
