Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:46:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints
Message-ID: <20231121144643.GJ8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20231120205418.334172-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20231120205418.334172-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20231120214742.GC8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <62c6e37c-88cc-43f7-ac3f-1c14059277cc@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231120222311.GE8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <cfc4b94e-8076-4e44-a8a7-2fd42dd9f2f2@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231121084706.GF8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a0ac5f77-411e-4562-9863-81196238f3f5@efficios.com>
 <20231121143647.GI8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <6f503545-9c42-4d10-aca4-5332fd1097f3@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6f503545-9c42-4d10-aca4-5332fd1097f3@efficios.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:40:24AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2023-11-21 09:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:06:18AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > Task trace RCU fits a niche that has the following set of requirements/tradeoffs:
> > > 
> > > - Allow page faults within RCU read-side (like SRCU),
> > > - Has a low-overhead read lock-unlock (without the memory barrier overhead of SRCU),
> > > - The tradeoff: Has a rather slow synchronize_rcu(), but tracers should not care about
> > >    that. Hence, this is not meant to be a generic replacement for SRCU.
> > > 
> > > Based on my reading of https://lwn.net/Articles/253651/ , preemptible RCU is not a good
> > > fit for the following reasons:
> > > 
> > > - It disallows blocking within a RCU read-side on non-CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels,
> > 
> > Your counter points are confused, we simply don't build preemptible RCU
> > unless PREEMPT=y, but that could surely be fixed and exposed as a
> > separate flavour.
> > 
> > > - AFAIU the mmap_sem used within the page fault handler does not have priority inheritance.
> > 
> > What's that got to do with anything?
> > 
> > Still utterly confused about what task-tracing rcu is and how it is
> > different from preemptible rcu.
> 
> In addition to taking the mmap_sem, the page fault handler need to block
> until its requested pages are faulted in, which may depend on disk I/O.
> Is it acceptable to wait for I/O while holding preemptible RCU read-side?

I don't know, preemptible rcu already needs to track task state anyway,
it needs to ensure all tasks have passed through a safe spot etc.. vs regular
RCU which only needs to ensure all CPUs have passed through start.

Why is this such a hard question?