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 S1753542Ab2GPRWe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:22:34 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:47435 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751808Ab2GPRWb (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:22:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:22:25 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ns: do not block exit_task_namespaces() for a long
 time
Message-ID: <20120716172225.GO31729@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20120713140806.b3d0fda8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <1342451364-14787-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20120716165301.GN31729@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20120716171634.GA21620@shutemov.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120716171634.GA21620@shutemov.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 08:16:34PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 06:09:24PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > On exiting of the last task in a namespace we need to trigger freeing of
> > > the namespace. Currently, we call synchronize_rcu() and free_nsproxy()
> > > directly on do_exit() path.
> > > 
> > > On my machine synchronize_rcu() blocks for about 0.01 seconds. For
> > > comparing: normal exit_group() syscall takes less than 0.0003 seconds.
> > > 
> > > Let's offload synchronize_rcu() and free_nsproxy() to a workqueue.
> > > 
> > > I also move synchronize_rcu() inside free_nsproxy(). It fixes racy
> > > put_nsproxy() which calls free_nsproxy() without synchronize_rcu().
> > > I guess it was missed during switch to RCU (see cf7b708).
> > 
> > NAK.  Making final umounts of anything in that namespace asynchronous,
> > even though nothing is holding the stuff on them busy is simply
> > wrong.  Note that they can take a _long_ time, so we are talking about
> > minutes worth of delay in the worst case.  It's user-visible and
> > it's a serious potential for trouble.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Now in worst case we have a process which hang for a few minutes in
> exit_group() syscall in D state, right? Why is that any better?
> Does it provide better user experience or better accounting or what?

"Session that was using that USB stick has still not finished exiting;
might be still busy writing stuff there, so better not pull it out yet".