Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:44:51 +0100
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu/kfree: Do not request RCU when not needed
Message-ID: <Y2O3w3d3qmTg6VAP@pc638.lan>
References: <20221102184911.GP5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <755B5ED1-653D-4E57-B114-77CDE10A9033@joelfernandes.org>
 <20221102202813.GR5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <CAEXW_YQ+SxBoNUkPHhC3O0DJNQtZomN_4GPtvaWuDs5sSU4FAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221102223516.GT5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221102223516.GT5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

> 
> > Though I am thinking, workqueue context is normally used to invoke
> > code that can block, and would the issue you mentioned affect those as
> > well, or affect RCU when those non-RCU work items block. So for
> > example, when other things in the system that can queue things on the
> > system_wq and block.  (I might be throwing darts in the dark).
> > 
> > To be safe, we can implement your suggestion which is basically a form
> > of my initial patch.
> > 
> > Should we add Tejun to the thread?
> 
> Let's get organized first, but that would be a good thing.  Or I could
> reach out to Tejun internally.
> 
> For but one thing to get organized about, maybe kfree_rcu() should be
> using a workqueue with the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag set.
> 
It can be as an option to consider. Because such workqueue has some
special priority for better handling of memory releasing. I can have
a look at it closer to see how kvfree_rcu() works if it goes with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.

--
Uladzislau Rezki