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:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:36:38 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
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: <20200716153638.gfh6dzp2h35ygfaa@linutronix.de>
References: <20200715183537.4010-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20200715185628.7b4k3o5efp4gnbla@linutronix.de>
 <20200715190243.GA26735@pc636>
 <20200715193250.axntj7jdt6bw52dr@linutronix.de>
 <20200715221449.GJ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200716141421.fzwf4tedr6rixd6d@linutronix.de>
 <20200716152027.GQ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200716152027.GQ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-07-16 08:20:27 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> You lost me on this one.  I am instead concerned that something like this
> might be needed on short notice:
> 
> 	raw_spin_lock(&some_lock);
> 	kfree_rcu(some_pointer, some_field_offset);
> 
> In contrast, single-argument kfree_rcu() cannot be invoked from any
> environment where synchronize_rcu() cannot be invoked.

I see. We don't have any kfree() in that context as far as I remember.
We had a few cases in "resize" where you allocate memory, copy content
and free old memory while under the lock but they are gone.

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Hmmm.
> 
> I point out the call_rcu() experience.
> 
> > > 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?
> > 
> > I would rethink the whole concept how this is implemented now and give
> > it another try. The code does not look pretty and is looking
> > complicated. The RT covering of this part then just added a simple
> > return because nothing else seemed to be possible. This patch here
> > looks like another duct tape attempt to avoid a warning.
> 
> In addition to the possibility of invocation from BH?

Invocation from BH should be possible because network would probably be
the first user. I don't remember anything wrong with BH if I remember
correctly.

> 							Thanx, Paul

Sebastian