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 11:47:24 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.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: <20190722114612-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
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>
 <20190722151439.GA247639@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190722151439.GA247639@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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).

-- 
MST