Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when !CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC

[Sandeep Dhavale]

>
> Sorry, but the current lockdep-support functions need to stay focused
> on lockdep.  They are not set up for general use, as we already saw
> with rcu_is_watching().
>
Ok, understood.

> If you get a z_erofs_wq_needed() (or whatever) upstream, and if it turns
> out that there is an RCU-specific portion that has clean semantics,
> then I would be willing to look at pulling that portion into RCU.
> Note "look at" as opposed to "unconditionally agree to".  ;-)
> > > I have no official opinion myself, but there are quite a few people
> > ...
> >
> > Regarding erofs trying to detect this, I understand few people can
> > have different
> > opinions. Not scheduling a thread while being in a thread context itself
> > is reasonable in my opinion which also has shown performance gains.
>
> You still haven't quantified the performance gains.  Presumably they
> are most compelling with large numbers of small buffers to be decrypted.
>

Maybe you missed one of the replies. Link [1] shows the scheduling overhead
for kworker vs high pri kthread. I think we can all see that there is non-zero
cost associated with always scheduling vs inline decompression.

> But why not just make a z_erofs_wq_needed() or similar in your own
> code, and push it upstream?  If the performance gains really are so
> compelling, one would hope that some sort of reasonable arrangement
> could be arrived at.
>
Yes, we will incorporate additional checks in erofs.

Thanks,
Sandeep.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-erofs/20230208093322.75816-1-hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/