From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97DFC76190 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD3721955 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:13:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8AD3721955 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 250B68E0003; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 201E38E0001; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:13:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0F23E8E0003; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:13:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-qt1-f199.google.com (mail-qt1-f199.google.com [209.85.160.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34F98E0001 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:13:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt1-f199.google.com with SMTP id k31so36084691qte.13 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:13:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=S2hK+h+EoI43cv30uqbj7+KxLPlCodqFcyazqEl7dso=; b=uBNHur0tXNkyv2/fppCu5IpalDW64CgLbXapq6YyII8H9N3tfWvd+bMYsbIE7ysvVs BZIxLG9OSn8OHZ+M8WSRyMSuTFFe+xB1OyGOKnJSFiQJFKAaBA6E84z4z7gCIZVK4uqB KuEiNem/luuAumCqABMfdqPcT9QMFtTNFKmx1I/XUbU9NAJ9GPb3zq/BiV+JL3r4+HM1 nangba5IkyY6mjl0xU/rESuAKIOXeXxQv8gsZjUlYY3qeFcbEDVO+ToEcYAJMwqlUqf8 AAFX9wemU3fQlm0lxz3zQA17MWUecXntNhhFr4g2MaOVEfyjhd5afzkxwQaWC/klveI7 ATeQ== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mst@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAViLqRAukzPYVIIbnF2moacLF9v4jji/ELp+MOrmQze59P72+ak eei9Z6r/6gi38gLh7Paeaikxz4XVKIN7TnLKfLuDDosD77OhPH6hrACNOc28LekTWx5P/59Lrhd dls4O0LKp0PUCUCJy+NID56+hU7TCM38geIhnkLc7TsXv5p7ECdKUarvMe5B6LgtYIA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1848:: with SMTP id n8mr16146727qtk.147.1563812032628; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:13:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx/TKw7vCf2LkpvROVKDFTDrvpAsdXP+mXA3wd209bYCy/1Dabk/yGZqfWXRh59Io+IaMbN X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1848:: with SMTP id n8mr16146706qtk.147.1563812032066; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:13:52 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1563812032; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=pvYsAQ2OQEgGvGRhslFVf88A9U3Imt1uuTP8fz9Kclk9VZrvfQz1erhLsJPsYSUqKI CWqO6ZJdm+Rw4ilWrk+oA0EnQthKZMFWczhmEAlCgoKQl2oBpJ81yZVdEaJe56AyrnXT dYBy+wkMAMfKFRBBhHFTT0fz/6KRmGGGmkMR5WXWexCe79gZ3tSbSXNPGGdP6633yhlJ ldeLilAY3enf06hoX8/5ER2FxqXy0qd9YBkRT3Sf9kyPqKacHuu1QZCK/ZzZKxO+ejIS 89Or8Rwc8mavGusU73zHcgQsr8Qo1zNs8xFlbsm7b8fxk49RLlTALXeo30kjgICcPEED 7O9w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=S2hK+h+EoI43cv30uqbj7+KxLPlCodqFcyazqEl7dso=; b=0rmhxNV3bEZFsXkxCzpvspSfFRhcwrsfZB3peIzDMDC7lfJo0GBZf3aC6284K0uAM0 ojlkn8JzewMlyYS637HAArff+dctoUzv9X1x20awhBmfj6WluByqGuPHdzROeW/tWBR0 wm3PCuS1BmpVJlWLBFofjrqoDFSAD9LW1zvsO2tnaKkE07xBnJO1EPAUs4lcUJOxS0HL DSaawJl3Wq+IPtRV5BxNwKjVi33iKIXukE+G+guQ05uV8tOxGzvgLB6u45nSzIkc+GkG m80mcSjOQYQ69qJtm8EZcP06wcDof3LXElPAeajdOMtQ+Cou6C99ZD6CjCkiZPC95fB9 rVjA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mst@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f11si16710261vsm.81.2019.07.22.09.13.51 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mst@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.183.28; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mst@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAFB030B8DE2; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-124-54.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.124.54]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AE2A260BEC; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:13:40 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Joel Fernandes , Matthew Wilcox , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, christian@brauner.io, davem@davemloft.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, guro@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jasowang@redhat.com, jglisse@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, peterz@infradead.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, wad@chromium.org Subject: Re: RFC: call_rcu_outstanding (was Re: WARNING in __mmdrop) Message-ID: <20190722120011-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <0000000000008dd6bb058e006938@google.com> <000000000000964b0d058e1a0483@google.com> <20190721044615-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190721081933-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190721131725.GR14271@linux.ibm.com> <20190721210837.GC363@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190721233113.GV14271@linux.ibm.com> <20190722151439.GA247639@google.com> <20190722114612-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190722155534.GG14271@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190722155534.GG14271@linux.ibm.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.47]); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:13:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 08:55:34AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:47:24AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:14:39AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > Would it make sense to have call_rcu() check to see if there are many > > > > > outstanding requests on this CPU and if so process them before returning? > > > > > That would ensure that frequent callers usually ended up doing their > > > > > own processing. > > > > > > Other than what Paul already mentioned about deadlocks, I am not sure if this > > > would even work for all cases since call_rcu() has to wait for a grace > > > period. > > > > > > So, if the number of outstanding requests are higher than a certain amount, > > > then you *still* have to wait for some RCU configurations for the grace > > > period duration and cannot just execute the callback in-line. Did I miss > > > something? > > > > > > Can waiting in-line for a grace period duration be tolerated in the vhost case? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > - Joel > > > > No, but it has many other ways to recover (try again later, drop a > > packet, use a slower copy to/from user). > > True enough! And your idea of taking recovery action based on the number > of callbacks seems like a good one while we are getting RCU's callback > scheduling improved. > > By the way, was this a real problem that you could make happen on real > hardware? > If not, I would suggest just letting RCU get improved over > the next couple of releases. So basically use kfree_rcu but add a comment saying e.g. "WARNING: in the future callers of kfree_rcu might need to check that not too many callbacks get queued. In that case, we can disable the optimization, or recover in some other way. Watch this space." > If it is something that you actually made happen, please let me know > what (if anything) you need from me for your callback-counting EBUSY > scheme. > > Thanx, Paul If you mean kfree_rcu causing OOM then no, it's all theoretical. If you mean synchronize_rcu stalling to the point where guest will OOPs, then yes, that's not too hard to trigger.