On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:23:45AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.
Ah, thank you for the reminder! Queued and pushed.
Thanx, Paul
