[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190726094756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:49:39 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@...kaller.appspotmail.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, 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: WARNING in __mmdrop
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 09:36:18PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2019/7/26 下午8:53, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> > On 2019/7/26 下午8:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:00:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2019/7/26 下午7:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:25:25PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > On 2019/7/25 下午9:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > Exactly, and that's the reason actually I use
> > > > > > > > synchronize_rcu() there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So the concern is still the possible synchronize_expedited()?
> > > > > > > I think synchronize_srcu_expedited.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > synchronize_expedited sends lots of IPI and is bad for realtime VMs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can I do this
> > > > > > > > on through another series on top of the incoming V2?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The question is this: is this still a gain if we switch to the
> > > > > > > more expensive srcu? If yes then we can keep the feature on,
> > > > > > I think we only care about the cost on srcu_read_lock()
> > > > > > which looks pretty
> > > > > > tiny form my point of view. Which is basically a
> > > > > > READ_ONCE() + WRITE_ONCE().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course I can benchmark to see the difference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > if not we'll put it off until next release and think
> > > > > > > of better solutions. rcu->srcu is just a find and replace,
> > > > > > > don't see why we need to defer that. can be a separate patch
> > > > > > > for sure, but we need to know how well it works.
> > > > > > I think I get here, let me try to do that in V2 and
> > > > > > let's see the numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me for tree rcu, its srcu_read_lock() have a mb()
> > > > which is too
> > > > expensive for us.
> > > I will try to ponder using vq lock in some way.
> > > Maybe with trylock somehow ...
> >
> >
> > Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks
> > last try).
>
>
> Ok, I play a little with this. And it works so far. Will do more testing
> tomorrow.
>
> One reason could be I switch to use get_user_pages_fast() to
> __get_user_pages_fast() which doesn't need mmap_sem.
>
> Thanks
OK that sounds good. If we also set a flag to make
vhost_exceeds_weight exit, then I think it will be all good.
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists