public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
To: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Tejun Heo <[email protected]>,
	io-uring <[email protected]>,
	"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.6-rc
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:33:21 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200313203321.GD3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgGN-9dmso4L+6RWdouEg4zQfd74m23K6c9E_=Qua+H1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 01:18:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Just a single fix here, improving the RCU callback ordering from last
> > week. After a bit more perusing by Paul, he poked a hole in the
> > original.
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> If I read this patch correctly, you're now adding a rcu_barrier() onto
> the system workqueue for each io_uring context freeing op.
> 
> This makes me worry:
> 
>  - I think system_wq is unordered, so does it even guarantee that the
> rcu_barrier happens after whatever work you're expecting it to be
> after?
> 
> Or is it using a workqueue not because it wants to serialize with any
> other work, but because it needs to use rcu_barrier in a context where
> it can't sleep?
> 
> But the commit message does seem to imply that ordering is important..
> 
>  - doesn't this have the potential to flood the system_wq be full of
> flushing things that all could take a while..
> 
> I've pulled it, and it may all be correct, just chalk this message up
> to "Linus got nervous looking at it".
> 
> Added Paul and Tejun to the participants explicitly.

The idea is that rcu_barrier() waits for callbacks from all earlier
call_rcu()s to be invoked.  So as long as you know that the call_rcu()
happened earlier than the rcu_barrier(), the rcu_barrier() is guaranteed
to wait for that call_rcu()'s callback.

In this case (and Jens will correct me in the sadly likely event that
I get the story confused), we have a call_rcu() followed by scheduling
work on that same task.  The work has to start executing after it was
scheduled, so if that work does an rcu_barrier(), then that rcu_barrier()
will wait on the call_rcu()'s callback to be invoked.

Jens could invoke the rcu_barrier() just before scheduling the work,
but the synchronous delay from the rcu_barrier() is a problem.

Jens, what did I mess up in the above story?  ;-)

I defer to Jens and Tejun on the possibility of ending up with all
workqueue kthreads waiting on rcu_barrier().  If that is a problem,
there are some ways of dealing with it, though none that I can think of
that come for free.

							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-13 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-13 17:50 [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.6-rc Jens Axboe
2020-03-13 20:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-13 20:33   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-03-13 21:33   ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-13 20:25 ` pr-tracker-bot
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-03-21 18:38 Jens Axboe
2020-03-21 19:15 ` pr-tracker-bot
2020-03-07 19:16 Jens Axboe
2020-03-07 20:25 ` pr-tracker-bot
2020-02-28 18:42 Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 19:55 ` pr-tracker-bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200313203321.GD3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox