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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 9C6C2C76190 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753A5218EA for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730250AbfGVPzo (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:55:44 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:62528 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726291AbfGVPzn (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:55:43 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6MFqYsh033365 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:55:43 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2twfpn1pbm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:55:42 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:55:42 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.25) by e16.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.203) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:55:33 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x6MFtWhQ53412302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:55:32 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3095B206A; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:55:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9353EB2068; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:55:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.189.166]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:55:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1D5F416C29D7; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:55:34 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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) Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190722114612-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19072215-0072-0000-0000-0000044BEC7B X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011475; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000287; SDB=6.01235879; UDB=6.00651337; IPR=6.01017229; MB=3.00027839; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-07-22 15:55:40 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19072215-0073-0000-0000-00004CBC4749 Message-Id: <20190722155534.GG14271@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-07-22_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907220176 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. 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