Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Add rcu user eqs exception hooks for async page fault

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2012/11/29 Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> > With rcu_user_exit() at the beginning, now rcu_irq_enter() only protects
> >> > the cpu idle eqs, but it's not good to call rcu_irq_exit() after the cpu
> >> > halt and the page ready.
> >>
> >> Hmm, why is it not good?
> >
> > I think in this case, as cpu halts and waits for page ready, it is
> > really in idle, and it's better for rcu to think it as rcu idle. But
> > with rcu_irq_enter(), the rcu would not think this cpu as idle. And the
> > rcu_irq_exit() is only called after this idle period to mark this cpu as
> > rcu idle again.
> 
> 
> Indeed. How about calling rcu_irq_exit() before native_safe_halt() and
> rcu_irq_enter() right after?
> 
We can't. If exception happens in the middle of rcu read section while
preemption is disabled then calling rcu_irq_exit() before halt is
incorrect. We can do that only if exception happen during idle and this
should be rare enough for us to not care.

> >> > So I still want to remove it. And later if it shows that we really needs
> >> > rcu somewhere in this code path, maybe we could use RCU_NONIDLE() to
> >> > protect it. ( The suspicious RCU usage reported in commit
> >> > c5e015d4949aa665 seems related to schedule(), which is not in the code
> >> > path if we are in cpu idle eqs )
> >>
> >> Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
> >> believe they are because exception_enter() exits the user mode, we
> >> should start to protect there right now instead of waiting for a
> >> potential future warning of illegal RCU use.
> >
> > I agree, but I think by only protecting the necessary code avoids
> > marking the entire waiting period as rcu non idle.
> 
> If we use RCU_NONIDLE(), this assume we need to check all the code
> there deeply for potential RCU uses and ensure it will never be
> extended later to use RCU. We really don't scale enough for that.
> There are too much subsystems involved there: waitqueue, spinlocks,
> slab, per cpu, etc...
> 
> So I strongly suggest we use rcu_irq_*() APIs, and relax them around
> native_safe_halt() like I suggested above. This seems to me the safest
> solution.

--
			Gleb.