Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40630-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:32:28 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com>, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
	lkp@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"gost.dev@samsung.com" <gost.dev@samsung.com>,
	Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] test_xarray: add tests for advanced multi-index use
Message-ID: <ZbQW3PRAIw8e7m0m@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20231104005747.1389762-2-da.gomez@samsung.com>
 <202311152254.610174ff-oliver.sang@intel.com>
 <ZVfS8fiudvHADtoR@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <ZVfT3bs9+F0jqIAw@casper.infradead.org>
 <ZVfUnhzv4UDigZKa@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <ZbQEA6WIh0HrFTbP@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <ZbQHWf0Hh04OwoZx@casper.infradead.org>
 <ZbQQXO5YhKhdr1Ou@bombadil.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZbQQXO5YhKhdr1Ou@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 12:04:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > We have a perfectly good system for "relaxing":
> > 
> >         xas_for_each_marked(&xas, page, end, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY) {
> >                 xas_set_mark(&xas, PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE);
> >                 if (++tagged % XA_CHECK_SCHED)
> >                         continue;
> > 
> >                 xas_pause(&xas);
> >                 xas_unlock_irq(&xas);
> >                 cond_resched();
> >                 xas_lock_irq(&xas);
> >         }
> 
> And yet we can get a soft lockup with order 20 (1,048,576 entries),
> granted busy looping over 1 million entries is insane, but it seems it
> the existing code may not be enough to avoid the soft lockup. Also
> cond_resched() may be eventually removed [0].

what?  you're in charge of when you sleep.  you can do this:

unsigned i = 0;
rcu_read_lock();
xas_for_each(...) {
	...
	if (iter++ % XA_CHECK_SCHED)
		continue;
	xas_pause();
	rcu_read_unlock();
	rcu_read_lock();
}
rcu_read_unlock();

and that will get rid of the rcu warnings.  right?