Re: WARNING in __mmdrop

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:53:18PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/7/26 下午8:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:00:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/7/26 下午7:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:25:25PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2019/7/25 下午9:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > Exactly, and that's the reason actually I use synchronize_rcu() there.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So the concern is still the possible synchronize_expedited()?
> > > > > > I think synchronize_srcu_expedited.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > synchronize_expedited sends lots of IPI and is bad for realtime VMs.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Can I do this
> > > > > > > on through another series on top of the incoming V2?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > The question is this: is this still a gain if we switch to the
> > > > > > more expensive srcu? If yes then we can keep the feature on,
> > > > > I think we only care about the cost on srcu_read_lock() which looks pretty
> > > > > tiny form my point of view. Which is basically a READ_ONCE() + WRITE_ONCE().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Of course I can benchmark to see the difference.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > if not we'll put it off until next release and think
> > > > > > of better solutions. rcu->srcu is just a find and replace,
> > > > > > don't see why we need to defer that. can be a separate patch
> > > > > > for sure, but we need to know how well it works.
> > > > > I think I get here, let me try to do that in V2 and let's see the numbers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > It looks to me for tree rcu, its srcu_read_lock() have a mb() which is too
> > > expensive for us.
> > I will try to ponder using vq lock in some way.
> > Maybe with trylock somehow ...
> 
> 
> Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks
> last try).
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > If we just worry about the IPI,
> > With synchronize_rcu what I would worry about is that guest is stalled
> 
> 
> Can this synchronize_rcu() be triggered by guest? If yes, there are several
> other MMU notifiers that can block. Is vhost something special here?

Sorry, let me explain: guests (and tasks in general)
can trigger activity that will
make synchronize_rcu take a long time. Thus blocking
an mmu notifier until synchronize_rcu finishes
is a bad idea.

> 
> > because system is busy because of other guests.
> > With expedited it's the IPIs...
> > 
> 
> The current synchronize_rcu()  can force a expedited grace period:
> 
> void synchronize_rcu(void)
> {
>         ...
>         if (rcu_blocking_is_gp())
> return;
>         if (rcu_gp_is_expedited())
> synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> else
> wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu);


An admin can force rcu to finish faster, trading
interrupts for responsiveness.

> 
> > > can we do something like in
> > > vhost_invalidate_vq_start()?
> > > 
> > >          if (map) {
> > >                  /* In order to avoid possible IPIs with
> > >                   * synchronize_rcu_expedited() we use call_rcu() +
> > >                   * completion.
> > > */
> > > init_completion(&c.completion);
> > >                  call_rcu(&c.rcu_head, vhost_finish_vq_invalidation);
> > > wait_for_completion(&c.completion);
> > >                  vhost_set_map_dirty(vq, map, index);
> > > vhost_map_unprefetch(map);
> > >          }
> > > 
> > > ?
> > Why would that be faster than synchronize_rcu?
> 
> 
> No faster but no IPI.
> 

Sorry I still don't see the point.
synchronize_rcu doesn't normally do an IPI either.


> > 
> > 
> > > > There's one other thing that bothers me, and that is that
> > > > for large rings which are not physically contiguous
> > > > we don't implement the optimization.
> > > > 
> > > > For sure, that can wait, but I think eventually we should
> > > > vmap large rings.
> > > 
> > > Yes, worth to try. But using direct map has its own advantage: it can use
> > > hugepage that vmap can't
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > Sure, so we can do that for small rings.
> 
> 
> Yes, that's possible but should be done on top.
> 
> Thanks

Absolutely. Need to fix up the bugs first.

-- 
MST