Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-10-01 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:29:27PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > Currently, rcu_cpu_starting() checks to see if the RCU core expects a > quiescent state from the incoming CPU. However, the current interaction > between RCU quiescent-state reporting and CPU-hotplug operations should > mea

[PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-09-29 Thread Joel Fernandes (Google)
Currently, rcu_cpu_starting() checks to see if the RCU core expects a quiescent state from the incoming CPU. However, the current interaction between RCU quiescent-state reporting and CPU-hotplug operations should mean that the incoming CPU never needs to report a quiescent state. First, the outgo

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-08-07 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:37:32AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:48:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [...] > > > And I could make the comment here as: > > > /* > > >* Delete QS reporting from here, by June 2021, if the warning does not > > >*

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-08-07 Thread Joel Fernandes
Hi Paul, On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:48:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: [...] > > And I could make the comment here as: > > /* > > * Delete QS reporting from here, by June 2021, if the warning does not > > * fire. Leave the warning indefinitely. Check RCU design requirements > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-07-30 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:42:22PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:21:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:02:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already. This is to > > > simpl

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-07-30 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:21:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:02:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already. This is to > > simplify the code in the CPU onlining path and also to make clear about > > w

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-07-30 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:21:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:02:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already. This is to > > simplify the code in the CPU onlining path and also to make clear about > > w

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-07-30 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:02:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already. This is to > simplify the code in the CPU onlining path and also to make clear about > where QS is reported. The act of QS reporting in CPU onlining path is > is

[PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already

2020-07-29 Thread Joel Fernandes (Google)
Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already. This is to simplify the code in the CPU onlining path and also to make clear about where QS is reported. The act of QS reporting in CPU onlining path is is likely unnecessary as shown by code reading and testing with rcutorture's TREE03