On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 09:46:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:16:49PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:55:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h > > > > index 75ed367d5b60..24db97cbf76b 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h > > > > @@ -278,6 +278,7 @@ extern void resched_cpu(int cpu); > > > > extern int rcu_num_lvls; > > > > extern int num_rcu_lvl[]; > > > > extern int rcu_num_nodes; > > > > +extern bool rcu_geometry_initialized; > > > > > > Can this be a static local variable inside rcu_init_geometry()? > > > > > > After all, init_srcu_struct() isn't called all that often, and its > > > overhead > > > is such that an extra function call and check is going to hurt it. This > > > of course requires removing __init from rcu_init_geometry(), but it is not > > > all that large, so why not just remove the __init? > > > > > > But if we really are worried about reclaiming rcu_init_geometry()'s > > > instructions (maybe we are?), then rcu_init_geometry() can be split > > > into a function that just does the check (which is not __init) and the > > > remainder of the function, which could remain __init. > > > > There you go: > > Queued, thank you!
Thanks! And please also consider "[PATCH 2/2] srcu: Early test SRCU polling start" if you want to expand testing coverage to polling.
