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;
Message-ID: <fccca41d-8a72-27cf-e589-409f54cd5811@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 21:51:16 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when
 !CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     paulmck@kernel.org, Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@google.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, xiang@kernel.org,
        Will Shiu <Will.Shiu@mediatek.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
References: <20230713003201.GA469376@google.com>
 <161f1615-3d85-cf47-d2d5-695adf1ca7d4@linux.alibaba.com>
 <0d9e7b4d-6477-47a6-b3d2-2c9d9b64903d@paulmck-laptop>
 <f124e041-6a82-2069-975c-4f393e5c4137@linux.alibaba.com>
 <87292a44-cc02-4d95-940e-e4e31d0bc6f2@paulmck-laptop>
 <f1c60dcb-e32f-7b7e-bf0d-5dec999e9299@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAEXW_YSODXRfgkR0D2G-x=0uZdsqvF3kZL+LL3DcRX-5CULJ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <894a3b64-a369-7bc6-c8a8-0910843cc587@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAEXW_YSM1yik4yWTgZoxCS9RM6TbsL26VCVCH=41+uMA8chfAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <58b661d0-0ebb-4b45-a10d-c5927fb791cd@paulmck-laptop>
 <7d433fac-a62d-4e81-b8e5-57cf5f2d1d55@paulmck-laptop>
 <058e7ee9-0380-eb1b-d9a8-b184cba6ed53@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAEXW_YQCpUsPz24H4Mux6wOH1=RFRR-gsXLFTbJ37MgUJo3kCw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YQCpUsPz24H4Mux6wOH1=RFRR-gsXLFTbJ37MgUJo3kCw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/7/14 21:42, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:17 PM Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2023/7/14 10:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:33:24AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >From what Sandeep described, the code path is in an RCU reader. My
>>>>> question is more, why doesn't it use SRCU instead since it clearly
>>>>> does so if BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING. What are the tradeoffs? IMHO, a deeper
>>>>> dive needs to be made into that before concluding that the fix is to
>>>>> use rcu_read_lock_any_held().
>>>>
>>>> How can this be solved?
>>>>
>>>> 1.   Always use a workqueue.  Simple, but is said to have performance
>>>>       issues.
>>>>
>>>> 2.   Pass a flag in that indicates whether or not the caller is in an
>>>>       RCU read-side critical section.  Conceptually simple, but might
>>>>       or might not be reasonable to actually implement in the code as
>>>>       it exists now.  (You tell me!)
>>>>
>>>> 3.   Create a function in z_erofs that gives you a decent
>>>>       approximation, maybe something like the following.
>>>>
>>>> 4.   Other ideas here.
>>>
>>> 5.    #3 plus make the corresponding Kconfig option select
>>>        PREEMPT_COUNT, assuming that any users needing compression in
>>>        non-preemptible kernels are OK with PREEMPT_COUNT being set.
>>>        (Some users of non-preemptible kernels object strenuously
>>>        to the added overhead from CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y.)
>>
>> I'm not sure if it's a good idea
> 
> I think it is a fine idea.
> 
>> we need to work on
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n (why not?), we could just always trigger a
>> workqueue for this.
>>
> 
> So CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n users don't deserve good performance? ;-)

I'm not sure if non-preemptible kernel users really care about
such sensitive latencies, I don't know, my 2 cents.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> thanks,
> 
>   - Joel