Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-132170-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:42:38 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, urezki@gmail.com,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
	qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() delays when all wait
 heads are in use
Message-ID: <Zg8ezv2vzylVwg2q@pavilion.home>
References: <20240403105212.237354-1-Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20240403105212.237354-1-Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>

Le Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:22:12PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay a ?crit :
> When all wait heads are in use, which can happen when
> rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work()'s callback processing
> is slow, any new synchronize_rcu() user's rcu_synchronize
> node's processing is deferred to future GP periods. This
> can result in long list of synchronize_rcu() invocations
> waiting for full grace period processing, which can delay
> freeing of memory. Mitigate this problem by using first
> node in the list as wait tail when all wait heads are in use.
> While methods to speed up callback processing would be needed
> to recover from this situation, allowing new nodes to complete
> their grace period can help prevent delays due to a fixed
> number of wait head nodes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>

Looking at it again, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to
optimize the thing that far. It's already a tricky state machine
to review and the workqueue has SR_NORMAL_GP_WAIT_HEAD_MAX - 1 = 4
grace periods worth of time to execute. Such a tense situation may
happen of course but, should we really work around that?

I let you guys judge. In the meantime, I haven't found correctness
issues:

Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>

Thanks.