lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints
From
On 2023-11-21 09:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:06:18AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Task trace RCU fits a niche that has the following set of requirements/tradeoffs:
>>
>> - Allow page faults within RCU read-side (like SRCU),
>> - Has a low-overhead read lock-unlock (without the memory barrier overhead of SRCU),
>> - The tradeoff: Has a rather slow synchronize_rcu(), but tracers should not care about
>> that. Hence, this is not meant to be a generic replacement for SRCU.
>>
>> Based on my reading of https://lwn.net/Articles/253651/ , preemptible RCU is not a good
>> fit for the following reasons:
>>
>> - It disallows blocking within a RCU read-side on non-CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels,
>
> Your counter points are confused, we simply don't build preemptible RCU
> unless PREEMPT=y, but that could surely be fixed and exposed as a
> separate flavour.
>
>> - AFAIU the mmap_sem used within the page fault handler does not have priority inheritance.
>
> What's that got to do with anything?
>
> Still utterly confused about what task-tracing rcu is and how it is
> different from preemptible rcu.

In addition to taking the mmap_sem, the page fault handler need to block
until its requested pages are faulted in, which may depend on disk I/O.
Is it acceptable to wait for I/O while holding preemptible RCU read-side?

Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-11-21 15:42    [W:0.055 / U:1.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site