[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190722162551.GK14271@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:25:51 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 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)
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:13:40PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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."
That sounds fair.
> > 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.
Is synchronize_rcu() being stalled by the userspace loop that is invoking
your ioctl that does kfree_rcu()? Or instead by the resulting callback
invocation?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists