[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0364d2c5-e5af-4bb5-b650-124a90f3d220@efficios.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 09:56:55 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints
On 2023-11-21 09:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:40:24AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2023-11-21 09:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:06:18AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> Task trace RCU fits a niche that has the following set of requirements/tradeoffs:
>>>>
>>>> - Allow page faults within RCU read-side (like SRCU),
>>>> - Has a low-overhead read lock-unlock (without the memory barrier overhead of SRCU),
>>>> - The tradeoff: Has a rather slow synchronize_rcu(), but tracers should not care about
>>>> that. Hence, this is not meant to be a generic replacement for SRCU.
>>>>
>>>> Based on my reading of https://lwn.net/Articles/253651/ , preemptible RCU is not a good
>>>> fit for the following reasons:
>>>>
>>>> - It disallows blocking within a RCU read-side on non-CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels,
>>>
>>> Your counter points are confused, we simply don't build preemptible RCU
>>> unless PREEMPT=y, but that could surely be fixed and exposed as a
>>> separate flavour.
>>>
>>>> - AFAIU the mmap_sem used within the page fault handler does not have priority inheritance.
>>>
>>> What's that got to do with anything?
>>>
>>> Still utterly confused about what task-tracing rcu is and how it is
>>> different from preemptible rcu.
>>
>> In addition to taking the mmap_sem, the page fault handler need to block
>> until its requested pages are faulted in, which may depend on disk I/O.
>> Is it acceptable to wait for I/O while holding preemptible RCU read-side?
>
> I don't know, preemptible rcu already needs to track task state anyway,
> it needs to ensure all tasks have passed through a safe spot etc.. vs regular
> RCU which only needs to ensure all CPUs have passed through start.
>
> Why is this such a hard question?
Personally what I am looking for is a clear documentation of preemptible
rcu with respect to whether it is possible to block on I/O (take a page
fault, call schedule() explicitly) from within a preemptible rcu
critical section. I guess this is a hard question because there is no
clear statement to that effect in the kernel documentation.
If it is allowed (which I doubt), then I wonder about the effect of
those long readers on grace period delays. Things like expedited grace
periods may suffer.
Based on Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst:
Preemptible variants of RCU (CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) get the
same effect, but require that the readers manipulate CPU-local
counters. These counters allow limited types of blocking within
RCU read-side critical sections. SRCU also uses CPU-local
counters, and permits general blocking within RCU read-side
critical sections. These variants of RCU detect grace periods
by sampling these counters.
Then we just have to find a definition of "limited types of blocking"
vs "general blocking".
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists