From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A714C76190 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447C020693 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726297AbfGVS6w (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:58:52 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:17246 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726352AbfGVS6s (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:58:48 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6MIgn9J039060 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:58:47 -0400 Received: from e12.ny.us.ibm.com (e12.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.202]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2twh92v1uj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:58:47 -0400 Received: from localhost by e12.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:58:46 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.26) by e12.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.199) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:58:38 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x6MIwbR034996668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:58:37 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4E1B206B; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:58:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7660B206E; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:58:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.189.166]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:58:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 61AF716C2A41; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:58:38 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Joel Fernandes , Matthew Wilcox , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, christian@brauner.io, davem@davemloft.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, guro@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jasowang@redhat.com, jglisse@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, peterz@infradead.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, wad@chromium.org Subject: Re: RFC: call_rcu_outstanding (was Re: WARNING in __mmdrop) Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190721081933-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190721131725.GR14271@linux.ibm.com> <20190721210837.GC363@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190721233113.GV14271@linux.ibm.com> <20190722151439.GA247639@google.com> <20190722114612-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190722155534.GG14271@linux.ibm.com> <20190722120011-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190722162551.GK14271@linux.ibm.com> <20190722123016-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190722123016-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19072218-0060-0000-0000-0000036406C2 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011476; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000287; SDB=6.01235939; UDB=6.00651373; IPR=6.01017290; MB=3.00027841; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-07-22 18:58:44 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19072218-0061-0000-0000-00004A404C02 Message-Id: <20190722185838.GN14271@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-07-22_14:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907220206 Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:32:17PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:25:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:13:40PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 08:55:34AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:47:24AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:14:39AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to have call_rcu() check to see if there are many > > > > > > > > outstanding requests on this CPU and if so process them before returning? > > > > > > > > That would ensure that frequent callers usually ended up doing their > > > > > > > > own processing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Other than what Paul already mentioned about deadlocks, I am not sure if this > > > > > > would even work for all cases since call_rcu() has to wait for a grace > > > > > > period. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, if the number of outstanding requests are higher than a certain amount, > > > > > > then you *still* have to wait for some RCU configurations for the grace > > > > > > period duration and cannot just execute the callback in-line. Did I miss > > > > > > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can waiting in-line for a grace period duration be tolerated in the vhost case? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > - Joel > > > > > > > > > > No, but it has many other ways to recover (try again later, drop a > > > > > packet, use a slower copy to/from user). > > > > > > > > True enough! And your idea of taking recovery action based on the number > > > > of callbacks seems like a good one while we are getting RCU's callback > > > > scheduling improved. > > > > > > > > By the way, was this a real problem that you could make happen on real > > > > hardware? > > > > > > > If not, I would suggest just letting RCU get improved over > > > > the next couple of releases. > > > > > > So basically use kfree_rcu but add a comment saying e.g. "WARNING: > > > in the future callers of kfree_rcu might need to check that > > > not too many callbacks get queued. In that case, we can > > > disable the optimization, or recover in some other way. > > > Watch this space." > > > > That sounds fair. > > > > > > If it is something that you actually made happen, please let me know > > > > what (if anything) you need from me for your callback-counting EBUSY > > > > scheme. > > > > > > If you mean kfree_rcu causing OOM then no, it's all theoretical. > > > If you mean synchronize_rcu stalling to the point where guest will OOPs, > > > then yes, that's not too hard to trigger. > > > > Is synchronize_rcu() being stalled by the userspace loop that is invoking > > your ioctl that does kfree_rcu()? Or instead by the resulting callback > > invocation? > > Sorry, let me clarify. We currently have synchronize_rcu in a userspace > loop. I have a patch replacing that with kfree_rcu. This isn't the > first time synchronize_rcu is stalling a VM for a long while so I didn't > investigate further. Ah, so a bunch of synchronize_rcu() calls within a single system call inside the host is stalling the guest, correct? If so, one straightforward approach is to do an rcu_barrier() every (say) 1000 kfree_rcu() calls within that loop in the system call. This will decrease the overhead by almost a factor of 1000 compared to a synchronize_rcu() on each trip through that loop, and will prevent callback overload. Or if the situation is different (for example, the guest does a long sequence of system calls, each of which does a single kfree_rcu() or some such), please let me know what the situation is. Thanx, Paul