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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 16C54C7618B for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC24E218D3 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727445AbfGZOLD (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:11:03 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f195.google.com ([209.85.222.195]:36567 "EHLO mail-qk1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726902AbfGZOLD (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:11:03 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f195.google.com with SMTP id g18so39107194qkl.3 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:11:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=BzrA0ys/IGuw6+s+YjNIxT2BTY3S5/AQ1t9rFuzqXxg=; b=OmbW1WZmj2XgebghhdNLR6pctQNPQzCQfirvnDAmZnPRlSEcwWTkLe719T+c8nN4xC XxmOlP2BrdflQR/ibtfDSfLV7KT9qtHjrj192NuRAZ4t5VHypg7TvoSjVV3/4ilT3P5R kodmFeutnRgh1K3jGs4R0/ckfs+K+iKE3FxVipAFaHQqHqVSgZnlwSq90oe+hUj3gDAS FoqJfDtbHl8PJK3/Fkj/bSWHniW+t6nOLwLoUCw0pj8MQlMCjux1AHwKG0rTLS408UxG d33wDdjD2vIZ2QA9i5NSW0Ngh74PIjrnsEtkU+EL6IMNepxOp7QxL+vgMSdnkFKKBWQP rbwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVAGrebgW0RlneCvtBqY2Im8K+Va/vLNUqxrG7NtUNMWkD3rlO4 SV6KsUIiDgsEUhSbvos5hGPVig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwObrpXH42ySj1xm6EAU0bUDulKJhDhMtupkS+wvVAcYf8qLK0833op+LhL9ss7CBOddhb+9A== X-Received: by 2002:a37:6086:: with SMTP id u128mr63344232qkb.270.1564150262488; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com ([212.92.104.165]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p32sm27054502qtb.67.2019.07.26.07.10.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:10:52 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Jason Wang Cc: syzbot , 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, 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: WARNING in __mmdrop Message-ID: <20190726100716-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20190725042651-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <84bb2e31-0606-adff-cf2a-e1878225a847@redhat.com> <20190725092332-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <11802a8a-ce41-f427-63d5-b6a4cf96bb3f@redhat.com> <20190726074644-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5cc94f15-b229-a290-55f3-8295266edb2b@redhat.com> <20190726082837-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190726094353-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <63754251-a39a-1e0e-952d-658102682094@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <63754251-a39a-1e0e-952d-658102682094@redhat.com> Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:00:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/7/26 下午9:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:53:18PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/7/26 下午8:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:00:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > On 2019/7/26 下午7:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:25:25PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > On 2019/7/25 下午9:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > Exactly, and that's the reason actually I use synchronize_rcu() there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the concern is still the possible synchronize_expedited()? > > > > > > > > I think synchronize_srcu_expedited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > synchronize_expedited sends lots of IPI and is bad for realtime VMs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can I do this > > > > > > > > > on through another series on top of the incoming V2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is this: is this still a gain if we switch to the > > > > > > > > more expensive srcu? If yes then we can keep the feature on, > > > > > > > I think we only care about the cost on srcu_read_lock() which looks pretty > > > > > > > tiny form my point of view. Which is basically a READ_ONCE() + WRITE_ONCE(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course I can benchmark to see the difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if not we'll put it off until next release and think > > > > > > > > of better solutions. rcu->srcu is just a find and replace, > > > > > > > > don't see why we need to defer that. can be a separate patch > > > > > > > > for sure, but we need to know how well it works. > > > > > > > I think I get here, let me try to do that in V2 and let's see the numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > It looks to me for tree rcu, its srcu_read_lock() have a mb() which is too > > > > > expensive for us. > > > > I will try to ponder using vq lock in some way. > > > > Maybe with trylock somehow ... > > > > > > Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks > > > last try). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we just worry about the IPI, > > > > With synchronize_rcu what I would worry about is that guest is stalled > > > > > > Can this synchronize_rcu() be triggered by guest? If yes, there are several > > > other MMU notifiers that can block. Is vhost something special here? > > Sorry, let me explain: guests (and tasks in general) > > can trigger activity that will > > make synchronize_rcu take a long time. > > > Yes, I get this. > > > > Thus blocking > > an mmu notifier until synchronize_rcu finishes > > is a bad idea. > > > The question is, MMU notifier are allowed to be blocked on > invalidate_range_start() which could be much slower than synchronize_rcu() > to finish. > > Looking at amdgpu_mn_invalidate_range_start_gfx() which calls > amdgpu_mn_invalidate_node() which did: > >                 r = reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu(bo->tbo.resv, >                         true, false, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT); > > ... > Right. And the result will probably be VMs freezing/timing out, too. It's just that we care about VMs more than the GPU guys :) > > > > because system is busy because of other guests. > > > > With expedited it's the IPIs... > > > > > > > The current synchronize_rcu()  can force a expedited grace period: > > > > > > void synchronize_rcu(void) > > > { > > >         ... > > >         if (rcu_blocking_is_gp()) > > > return; > > >         if (rcu_gp_is_expedited()) > > > synchronize_rcu_expedited(); > > > else > > > wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu); > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu); > > > > An admin can force rcu to finish faster, trading > > interrupts for responsiveness. > > > Yes, so when set, all each synchronize_rcu() will go for > synchronize_rcu_expedited(). And that's bad for realtime things. I understand what you are saying, host admin can set this and VMs won't time-out. What I'm saying is we should not make admins choose between two types of bugs. Tuning for performance is fine. > > > > > > > > can we do something like in > > > > > vhost_invalidate_vq_start()? > > > > > > > > > >         if (map) { > > > > >                 /* In order to avoid possible IPIs with > > > > >                  * synchronize_rcu_expedited() we use call_rcu() + > > > > >                  * completion. > > > > > */ > > > > > init_completion(&c.completion); > > > > >                 call_rcu(&c.rcu_head, vhost_finish_vq_invalidation); > > > > > wait_for_completion(&c.completion); > > > > >                 vhost_set_map_dirty(vq, map, index); > > > > > vhost_map_unprefetch(map); > > > > >         } > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > Why would that be faster than synchronize_rcu? > > > > > > No faster but no IPI. > > > > > Sorry I still don't see the point. > > synchronize_rcu doesn't normally do an IPI either. > > > > Not the case of when rcu_expedited is set. This can just 100% make sure > there's no IPI. Right but then the latency can be pretty big. > > > > > > > > > > > There's one other thing that bothers me, and that is that > > > > > > for large rings which are not physically contiguous > > > > > > we don't implement the optimization. > > > > > > > > > > > > For sure, that can wait, but I think eventually we should > > > > > > vmap large rings. > > > > > Yes, worth to try. But using direct map has its own advantage: it can use > > > > > hugepage that vmap can't > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Sure, so we can do that for small rings. > > > > > > Yes, that's possible but should be done on top. > > > > > > Thanks > > Absolutely. Need to fix up the bugs first. > > > > Yes. > > Thanks