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=-2.2 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 0F4DBC7618B for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:00:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D3D22CF5 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:00:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C3D3D22CF5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 55BB56B0003; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 50CB28E0005; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:00:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3AC7B8E0003; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:00:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-qk1-f199.google.com (mail-qk1-f199.google.com [209.85.222.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EE86B0003 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id e18so45136605qkl.17 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=stcUXmd1EWMweb01P1UeC7yCi2kg8YuWNOzdoxvJgRU=; b=MTiJXIIYWeYukIn8QG5J+mSLnEIhzmn4wEr6eiDHMUiaQk7oSMAYdev0zKOgonmrKg taV0AXVj6OKmMoCQdQVe9zuHmkZPs5Fj4b33y8AzmRkRiJORcA7avsfOoczixSKZpyFA N9xB/F2mxjP1d5I+7d+DxQQLmJw7zdN6wuKgDsC2ldA5jYkQGaFaqiZm3ZqVaT9C1OIm mE6jPOKcX1Lkjni3+HTpGOhA5yelp9TKnpPc+w4MVDDqijpIiozHR8PL6mPM9Temb2y2 c3jEq5gly2lGFkVgiFmzXbzk4Tu5nFMIGm7iw8c0RAvrmPfjD1ZDieeClHLj9DC0P3Wl tMFw== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXQxDF+JBPeLs2Oe+NR3IXxpcmIF9V/tGIJYYW7+fYKRz7GOKDg gfdEqFhgGl4Bsn8Mt1ELicAb1omBlbHULhvH1X0iWTs4Rzg/W305a1/A2Ve+SC5Bb3MF0VOHjvu FXO+HdqVQTwH8rJGHwXb55zlA3gCKDxrlI/O9iNmNHFuv1enNm44pdwFDbqKPos/4Cg== X-Received: by 2002:aed:2fe6:: with SMTP id m93mr37879933qtd.114.1564149651626; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy1Sd9sAoo5hUiRKSCSnj8oh70rrVkG8fGynoAWEGqVQDP57Bh6pf+mSf/QZyYXWf/G3LKU X-Received: by 2002:aed:2fe6:: with SMTP id m93mr37879812qtd.114.1564149650414; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:00:50 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1564149650; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ZTwXgPEvwpaGqjBd3uzkuI5CbxtQbNy8f0jtnhdnkcY9JyHK90UF8vHxm/XQXBkm7Q eLgmfkvG1Bvvni6c3fxFbMI4FSLZwvvlNQEh/4Dx37qmIxpHlfVw1Gi6B8JzmXvDAS/9 jrP2Z8v+5DgbPqyqWC3N4KctbQNtGckRbQwIehI4I9NN44dKs7+A05Sr/o7cCm9801mW IsyB0BQAxuJ86VeoepijAnkUveCIKe/5AH/ETzTJMjNcOHAObcA9hm28p7zwwr70mTNn HRD77C6IwB4AbFqlXYoG2me/usAahQhujz5gWE1P3Ae5nVxfRfib9w7s0muKH1Z+JNhj 5uWA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-language:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=stcUXmd1EWMweb01P1UeC7yCi2kg8YuWNOzdoxvJgRU=; b=R3BeQWKKnmp+KdPGGHnKI5M6YAMMYORWRn2K9MzV434TBXXVhnbo0XcGgUARkE8Fdh Rqr1E4Qwr60Xq317atzwha7KsG/2I5URcV23rftjBxGUry6hCve8C7Np9BSZxtw+MN3u GnBYD5tRxYl00XOIEq9x77HsmNXER5wbQV/Iss85goP3G8cjobiZ+QCuxiuNF05g3pPk /WpzTWgd/7infXWwqxX1qbFVTN/WyVT/tssk38Vr1Kq/xM/SkUKaw6VCAq95lMIuyB7V Sc5FlkAsqtQ8E2b9P8LMj/FzBS17ULJXQoHbx7xFMiroG4M89APhfj5UqWD0ODvg2h9c c2Tg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q39si34566109qtk.284.2019.07.26.07.00.50 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.183.28; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jasowang@redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A33C059B6F; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.12.238] (ovpn-12-238.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.238]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894BC6062E; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:00:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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 References: <20190725012149-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <55e8930c-2695-365f-a07b-3ad169654d28@redhat.com> <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> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <63754251-a39a-1e0e-952d-658102682094@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 22:00:20 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190726094353-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:00:49 +0000 (UTC) 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 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); ... >>> 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(). > >>>> 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. >>> >>>>> 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