lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: call_rcu_outstanding (was Re: WARNING in __mmdrop)
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:52:05AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 04:31:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 02:08:37PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 06:17:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Also, the overhead is important. For example, as far as I know,
> > > > current RCU gracefully handles close(open(...)) in a tight userspace
> > > > loop. But there might be trouble due to tight userspace loops around
> > > > lighter-weight operations.
> > >
> > > I thought you believed that RCU was antifragile, in that it would scale
> > > better as it was used more heavily?
> >
> > You are referring to this? https://paulmck.livejournal.com/47933.html
> >
> > If so, the last few paragraphs might be worth re-reading. ;-)
> >
> > And in this case, the heuristics RCU uses to decide when to schedule
> > invocation of the callbacks needs some help. One component of that help
> > is a time-based limit to the number of consecutive callback invocations
> > (see my crude prototype and Eric Dumazet's more polished patch). Another
> > component is an overload warning.
> >
> > Why would an overload warning be needed if RCU's callback-invocation
> > scheduling heurisitics were upgraded? Because someone could boot a
> > 100-CPU system with the rcu_nocbs=0-99, bind all of the resulting
> > rcuo kthreads to (say) CPU 0, and then run a callback-heavy workload
> > on all of the CPUs. Given the constraints, CPU 0 cannot keep up.
> >
> > So warnings are required as well.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Unfortunately, no. Here is a code fragment illustrating why:
> >
> > void my_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&my_lock, flags);
> > handle_cb(rhp);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&my_lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&my_lock, flags);
> > p = look_something_up();
> > remove_that_something(p);
> > call_rcu(p, my_cb);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&my_lock, flags);
> >
> > Invoking the extra callbacks directly from call_rcu() would thus result
> > in self-deadlock. Documentation/RCU/UP.txt contains a few more examples
> > along these lines.
>
> We could add an option that simply fails if overloaded, right?
> Have caller recover...

For example, return EBUSY from your ioctl? That should work. You could
also sleep for a jiffy or two to let things catch up in this BUSY (or
similar) case. Or try three times, waiting a jiffy between each try,
and return EBUSY if all three tries failed.

Or just keep it simple and return EBUSY on the first try. ;-)

All of this assumes that this ioctl is the cause of the overload, which
during early boot seems to me to be a safe assumption.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-22 13:52    [W:0.158 / U:9.924 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site