From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu/tree: Skip entry into the page allocator for PREEMPT_RT
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:38:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200715133808.GA24778@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200630164543.4mdcf6zb4zfclhln@linutronix.de>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:45:43PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 13:12:12 [-0700], paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> >
> > To keep the kfree_rcu() code working in purely atomic sections on RT,
> > such as non-threaded IRQ handlers and raw spinlock sections, avoid
> > calling into the page allocator which uses sleeping locks on RT.
> >
> > In fact, even if the caller is preemptible, the kfree_rcu() code is
> > not, as the krcp->lock is a raw spinlock.
> >
> > Calling into the page allocator is optional and avoiding it should be
> > Ok, especially with the page pre-allocation support in future patches.
> > Such pre-allocation would further avoid the a need for a dynamically
> > allocated page in the first place.
> >
> > Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 64592b4..dbdd509 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3184,6 +3184,18 @@ kfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
> > if (!bnode) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(sizeof(struct kfree_rcu_bulk_data) > PAGE_SIZE);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * To keep this path working on raw non-preemptible
> > + * sections, prevent the optional entry into the
> > + * allocator as it uses sleeping locks. In fact, even
> > + * if the caller of kfree_rcu() is preemptible, this
> > + * path still is not, as krcp->lock is a raw spinlock.
> > + * With additional page pre-allocation in the works,
> > + * hitting this return is going to be much less likely.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> > + return false;
>
> This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> (CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING).
>
> As of -rc3 it should complain about printk() which is why it is still disabled by default.
>
Have you tried to trigger a "complain" you are talking about?
I suspect to get some trace dump when CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y.
Thank you.
--
Vlad Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-15 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-24 20:12 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] kfree_rcu updates for v5.9 Paul E. McKenney
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/17] rcu: Fix a kernel-doc warnings for "count" paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/17] rcu/tree: Keep kfree_rcu() awake during lock contention paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu/tree: Skip entry into the page allocator for PREEMPT_RT paulmck
2020-06-30 16:45 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-06-30 18:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-02 14:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-02 16:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-02 20:19 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-06 21:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-07 17:34 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-07 18:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-08 18:48 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-02 19:45 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-06 19:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-06 19:55 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-07-06 20:29 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-07 9:27 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-15 13:38 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2020-07-15 14:16 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-07-15 14:20 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/17] rcu/tree: Repeat the monitor if any free channel is busy paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/17] rcu/tree: Make debug_objects logic independent of rcu_head paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/17] rcu/tree: Simplify KFREE_BULK_MAX_ENTR macro paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/17] rcu/tree: Move kfree_rcu_cpu locking/unlocking to separate functions paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/17] rcu/tree: Use static initializer for krc.lock paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/17] rcu/tree: cache specified number of objects paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/17] rcu/tree: Maintain separate array for vmalloc ptrs paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu/tiny: support vmalloc in tiny-RCU paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/17] rcu: Rename *_kfree_callback/*_kfree_rcu_offset/kfree_call_* paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/17] mm/list_lru.c: Rename kvfree_rcu() to local variant paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/17] rcu: Introduce 2 arg kvfree_rcu() interface paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/17] rcu: Support reclaim for head-less object paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/17] rcu: Introduce single argument kvfree_rcu() interface paulmck
2020-06-24 20:12 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/17] lib/test_vmalloc.c: Add test cases for kvfree_rcu() paulmck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200715133808.GA24778@pc636 \
--to=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).