lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 40/40] rcu: Make non-preemptive schedule be Tasks RCU quiescent state
From
Date
On 29/09/2017 12:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:01:24PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Does this mean whenever we get a page fault in a RCU read-side critical
>>> section, we may hit this?
>>>
>>> Could we simply avoid to schedule() in kvm_async_pf_task_wait() if the
>>> fault process is in a RCU read-side critical section as follow?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>> index aa60a08b65b1..291ea13b23d2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ void kvm_async_pf_task_wait(u32 token)
>>>
>>> n.token = token;
>>> n.cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>> - n.halted = is_idle_task(current) || preempt_count() > 1;
>>> + n.halted = is_idle_task(current) || preempt_count() > 1 || rcu_preempt_depth();
>>> init_swait_queue_head(&n.wq);
>>> hlist_add_head(&n.link, &b->list);
>>> raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
>>>
>>> (Add KVM folks and list Cced)
>>
>> Yes, that would work. Mind to send it as a proper patch?
>
> I'm confused, why would we do an ASYNC PF at all here? Thing is, a
> printk() shouldn't trigger a major fault _ever_. At worst it triggers
> something like a vmalloc minor fault. And I'm thinking we should not do
> the whole ASYNC machinery for minor faults.

Async page faults are page faults _on the host_ side, and you cannot
control what the host pages out. Of course the hypervisor filters out
some cases itself (e.g. IF=0) but in general you could get one at any time.

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-29 13:45    [W:0.248 / U:5.320 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site