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:   Tue, 26 May 2020 17:27:56 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] rcu: Directly lock rdp->nocb_lock on nocb code
 entrypoints
Message-ID: <20200526212756.GF76276@google.com>
References: <20200513164714.22557-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20200513164714.22557-2-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20200520122949.GB16672@google.com>
 <20200522175739.GM2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200526152137.GB76276@google.com>
 <20200526162946.GK2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200526201840.GC76276@google.com>
 <20200526210947.GP2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200526210947.GP2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:09:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> > > > BTW, I'm really itching to give it a try to make the scheduler more deadlock
> > > > resilient (that is, if the scheduler wake up path detects a deadlock, then it
> > > > defers the wake up using timers, or irq_work on its own instead of passing
> > > > the burden of doing so to the callers). Thoughts?
> > > 
> > > I have used similar approaches within RCU, but on the other hand the
> > > scheduler often has tighter latency constraints than RCU does.	So I
> > > think that is a better question for the scheduler maintainers than it
> > > is for me.  ;-)
> > 
> > Ok, it definitely keeps coming up in my radar first with the
> > rcu_read_unlock_special() stuff, and now the nocb ;-). Perhaps it could also
> > be good for a conference discussion!
> 
> Again, please understand that RCU has way looser latency constraints
> than the scheduler does.  Adding half a jiffy to wakeup latency might
> not go over well, especially in the real-time application area.

Yeah, agreed that the "deadlock detection" code should be pretty light weight
if/when it is written.

> But what did the scheduler maintainers say about this idea?

Last I remember when it came up during the rcu_read_unlock_special() deadlock
discussions, there's no way to know for infra like RCU to know that it was
invoked from the scheduler.

The idea I am bringing up now (about the scheduler itself detecting a
recursion) was never brought up (not yet) with the sched maintainers (at
least not by me).

thanks,

 - Joel