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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 5940DC433E3 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBFE207DD for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="3L7sNJi9"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="CmaaA0Fy" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1CBFE207DD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9B4076B0070; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 964CF6B0085; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:14:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 853FD6B0087; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:14:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0106.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.106]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFC86B0070 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4ED1E03 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:14:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77044134300.26.boot62_1e1209e26f02 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC7A1804A31C for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:14:29 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: boot62_1e1209e26f02 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3637 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:14:21 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1594908863; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AAXlecMOFFlUauM/8ONbVZjnpZpBV3pslxC+IrQ6lXU=; b=3L7sNJi9VXo9Z5SmOslhbPfXNdmNOC/okJbIRApJQOVGSJHYxx3zwEI/NWVJtsP3JGmZud I63zlGcDTBzr7GduXcDlNUUgW8W1HLsbe951Dy5inHl3BnvEczyvua/WyfJTJPnlnIELUz 0alHHrk1IZG/c9MMwTqFXZmUxgC5/SKi70ESzexzdMbcpd8SNAUMrtZQYAy3Vz4mr2RqGF RDt6sMFncZVSXQS4YmcmtESaIQRW2ckHE02Zt5q4IMN3dz2S/pEKXELvpma5Uh4XtW4hgc ALaHYuaZv3QGSyJrZDx04XbDKf+IkhaIVib9AxLiIQylgBb+ShhV6CxaUpuDVg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1594908863; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AAXlecMOFFlUauM/8ONbVZjnpZpBV3pslxC+IrQ6lXU=; b=CmaaA0FyUpNJji9awzQD8Ot8BPXYUIJarkWbz1mYy2rj1VmNgJ75ieNKdI2WsJd0IfxG5u xlc/8jOjBf5sFDCQ== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , LKML , RCU , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , "Theodore Y . Ts'o" , Matthew Wilcox , Joel Fernandes , Oleksiy Avramchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/tree: Drop the lock before entering to page allocator Message-ID: <20200716141421.fzwf4tedr6rixd6d@linutronix.de> References: <20200715183537.4010-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20200715185628.7b4k3o5efp4gnbla@linutronix.de> <20200715190243.GA26735@pc636> <20200715193250.axntj7jdt6bw52dr@linutronix.de> <20200715221449.GJ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200715221449.GJ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2020-07-15 15:14:49 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > My concern is that some critical bug will show up at some point > that requires double-argument kfree_rcu() be invoked while holding > a raw spinlock. (Single-argument kfree_rcu() must sometimes invoke > synchronize_rcu(), so it can never be invoked in any state forbidding > invoking schedule().) So you are saying as of today we are good but in near future the following synchronize_rcu() -> kfree_rcu() may be needed? > Yes, dropping to a plain spinlock would be simple in the here and now, > but experience indicates that it is only a matter of time, and that when > that time comes it will come as an emergency. Hmmm. > One approach would be to replace the "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)" > with some sort of check for being in a context where spinlock acquisition > is not legal. What could be done along those lines? I would rethink the whole concept how this is implemented now and give it another try. The code does not look pretty and is looking complicated. The RT covering of this part then just added a simple return because nothing else seemed to be possible. This patch here looks like another duct tape attempt to avoid a warning. > Thanx, Paul Sebastian