Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:23:51 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
        "bvanassche@acm.org" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        "hare@suse.de" <hare@suse.de>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "wei.liu@kernel.org" <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: storvsc: Fix a panic in the hibernation procedure
Message-ID: <20200422092351.GF299948@T590>
References: <1587514644-47058-1-git-send-email-decui@microsoft.com>
 <20200422012814.GB299948@T590>
 <HK0P153MB0273B954294B331E20AACB41BFD20@HK0P153MB0273.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20200422020134.GC299948@T590>
 <20200422030807.GK17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200422041629.GE299948@T590>
 <HK0P153MB0273CF2901E193C03C934A47BFD20@HK0P153MB0273.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <HK0P153MB0273CF2901E193C03C934A47BFD20@HK0P153MB0273.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:58:14AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:16 PM
> > ...
> > > > > When we're in storvsc_suspend(), all the userspace processes have been
> > > > > frozen and all the file systems have been flushed, and there should not
> > > > > be too much I/O from the kernel space, so IMO scsi_host_block() should
> > be
> > > > > pretty fast here.
> > > >
> > > > I guess it depends on RCU's implementation, so CC RCU guys.
> > > >
> > > > Hello Paul & Josh,
> > > >
> > > > Could you clarify that if sysnchronize_rcu becomes quickly during
> > > > system suspend?
> > >
> > > Once you have all but one CPU offlined, it becomes extremely fast, as
> > > in roughly a no-op (which is an idea of Josh's from back in the day).
> > > But if there is more than one CPU online, then synchronize_rcu() still
> > > takes on the order of several to several tens of jiffies.
> > >
> > > So, yes, in some portions of system suspend, synchronize_rcu() becomes
> > > very fast indeed.
> > 
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > Thanks for your clarification.
> > 
> > In system suspend path, device is suspended before
> > suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(),
> > so I guess synchronize_rcu() is not quick enough even though user space
> > processes and some kernel threads are frozen.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ming
> 
> storvsc_suspend() -> scsi_host_block() is only called in the hibernation
> path, which is not a hot path at all, so IMHO we don't really care if it
> takes 10ms or 100ms or even 1s. :-)  BTW, in my test, typically the

Are you sure the 'we' can cover all users?

> scsi_host_block() here takes about 3ms in my 40-vCPU VM.

If more LUNs are added, the time should be increased proportionallly,
that is why I think scsi_host_block() is bad.


Thanks,
Ming