From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752648AbdEJLCG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 10 May 2017 07:02:06 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:26629 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752285AbdEJLCF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 10 May 2017 07:02:05 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,318,1491289200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="85670622"
Message-ID: <1494414097.6362.21.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Q. drm/i915 shrinker, synchronize_rcu_expedited() from handlers
From: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@gmail.com>, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
        daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, jani.nikula@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:01:37 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20170510104354.GB5011@redhat.com>
References: <7743.1493532478@jrobl> <20170430094348.GA5970@redhat.com>
         <16988.1493604328@jrobl> <1493977180.3551.24.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <alpine.LSU.2.11.1705051448260.3759@eggly.anvils>
         <1494230651.3367.2.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <alpine.LSU.2.11.1705091952090.3043@eggly.anvils>
         <20170510104354.GB5011@redhat.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On ke, 2017-05-10 at 12:43 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> It works for me too. I'm running my workstation also with
> synchronize_rcu removed from i915_gem_shrink_all in addition to the
> above. Isn't the oom method invoked from reclaim context too? As far
> as I can tell synchronize_rcu can end up throttling on a background
> synchronize_rcu_expedited(), so it might end up in the same issue
> unless removed too.

Thanks for testing and spotting my bad grepping, I'll add your T-b and
s
end v3.

Regards, Joonas

> Tested-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> 
> (I can't reproduce the lockups 100% of the time, but they never
> happened again with this patch and I happened to run the load that
> reproduces them a couple of times already with v4.11 and this patch
> applied)
> 
> It's also certainly improving performance by removing the
> synchronize_rcu_expedited from the _count methods where it was useless
> (in addition to unsafe).
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation