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;
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:47:28 +0200
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/tree: Drop the lock before entering to page
 allocator
Message-ID: <20200716144728.GA31046@pc636>
References: <20200715183537.4010-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20200715185628.7b4k3o5efp4gnbla@linutronix.de>
 <CAEXW_YRoTvQfqqcM9fi+MkMxCPEaoJh4zHRM3qNYkv=-nAVuBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200716091913.GA28595@pc636>
 <20200716142537.ecp4icsq7kg6qhdx@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200716142537.ecp4icsq7kg6qhdx@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:25:37PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-16 11:19:13 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Sebastian, could you please confirm that if that patch that is in
> > question fixes it?
> > 
> > It would be appreciated!
> 
> So that preempt disable should in terms any warnings. However I don't
> think that it is strictly needed and from scheduling point of view you
> forbid a CPU migration which might be good otherwise.
>
Please elaborate your point regarding "i do not think it is strictly needed".

Actually i can rework the patch to remove even such preempt_enable/disable
to stay on the same CPU, but i do not see the point of doing it.

Do you see the point?

As for scheduling point of view. Well, there are many places when there
is a demand in memory or pages from atomic context. Also, getting a page
is not considered as a hot path in the kfree_rcu(). 

>
> Also if interrupts and everything is enabled then someone else might
> invoke kfree_rcu() from BH context for instance.
> 
And what? What is a problem here, please elaborate if you see any
issues.

--
Vlad Rezki