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 08:55:34 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        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)
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
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>
 <20190722114612-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190722114612-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190722155534.GG14271@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.

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