[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190722151439.GA247639@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:14:39 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, aarcange@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, christian@...uner.io,
davem@...emloft.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
elena.reshetova@...el.com, guro@...com, hch@...radead.org,
james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
jglisse@...hat.com, keescook@...omium.org, ldv@...linux.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
luto@...capital.net, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
namit@...are.com, peterz@...radead.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: RFC: call_rcu_outstanding (was Re: WARNING in __mmdrop)
[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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists