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, 15 Jul 2020 15:14:49 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/tree: Drop the lock before entering to page
 allocator
Message-ID: <20200715221449.GJ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200715183537.4010-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20200715185628.7b4k3o5efp4gnbla@linutronix.de>
 <20200715190243.GA26735@pc636>
 <20200715193250.axntj7jdt6bw52dr@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200715193250.axntj7jdt6bw52dr@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:32:50PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 21:02:43 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> >     spin_lock();
> >     __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> >     spin_unlock();
> > <snip>
> > 
> > Also, please note we do it for regular kernel.
> 
> ach right okay then.
> 
> > >
> > > What happened to the part where I asked for a spinlock_t?
> > > 
> > What do you mean?
> 
> Please drop that raw_spinlock_t for the kfree_rcu() based locking and
> use just a plain spinlock_t for the locking. Then you can keep the same
> code flow for RT and !RT without any special cases and everything.

My concern is that some critical bug will show up at some point
that requires double-argument kfree_rcu() be invoked while holding
a raw spinlock.  (Single-argument kfree_rcu() must sometimes invoke
synchronize_rcu(), so it can never be invoked in any state forbidding
invoking schedule().)

Yes, dropping to a plain spinlock would be simple in the here and now,
but experience indicates that it is only a matter of time, and that when
that time comes it will come as an emergency.

One approach would be to replace the "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)"
with some sort of check for being in a context where spinlock acquisition
is not legal.  What could be done along those lines?

							Thanx, Paul