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;
Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        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, 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
References: <0000000000008dd6bb058e006938@google.com>
 <000000000000964b0d058e1a0483@google.com>
 <20190721044615-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <75c43998-3a1c-676f-99ff-3d04663c3fcc@redhat.com>
 <20190722035657-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <cfcd330d-5f4a-835a-69f7-c342d5d0d52d@redhat.com>
 <20190723010156-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <124be1a2-1c53-8e65-0f06-ee2294710822@redhat.com>
 <20190723032800-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <e2e01a05-63d8-4388-2bcd-b2be3c865486@redhat.com>
 <20190723062842-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <025aa12a-c789-7eac-ba96-48e4dd3dd551@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:37:23 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190723062842-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2019/7/23 下午6:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:42:19PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> So how about this: do exactly what you propose but as a 2 patch series:
>>> start with the slow safe patch, and add then return uaddr optimizations
>>> on top. We can then more easily reason about whether they are safe.
>>
>> If you stick, I can do this.
> So I definitely don't insist but I'd like us to get back to where
> we know existing code is very safe (if not super fast) and
> optimizing from there.  Bugs happen but I'd like to see a bisect
> giving us "oh it's because of XYZ optimization" and not the
> general "it's somewhere within this driver" that we are getting
> now.


Syzbot has bisected to the commit of metadata acceleration in fact :)


>
> Maybe the way to do this is to revert for this release cycle
> and target the next one. What do you think?


I would try to fix the issues consider packed virtqueue which may use 
this for a good performance number. But if you insist, I'm ok to revert. 
Or maybe introduce a config option to disable it by default (almost all 
optimized could be ruled out).

Thanks