Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:41:52 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, 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)
Message-ID: <20190722134152.GA13013@ziepe.ca>
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>
 <20190722035042-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20190722115149.GY14271@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190722115149.GY14271@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:51:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, no.  Here is a code fragment illustrating why:

That is only true in the general case though, kfree_rcu() doesn't have
this problem since we know what the callback is doing. In general a
caller of kfree_rcu() should not need to hold any locks while calling
it.

We could apply the same idea more generally and have some
'call_immediate_or_rcu()' which has restrictions on the caller's
context.

I think if we have some kind of problem here it would be better to
handle it inside the core code and only require that callers use the
correct RCU API.

I can think of many places where kfree_rcu() is being used under user
control..

Jason