|
From: | David Hildenbrand |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] memory: Fix (/ Discuss) a few rcu issues |
Date: | Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:46:56 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 |
On 25.02.23 17:31, Peter Xu wrote:
[not for merging, but for discussion; this is something I found when looking at another issue on Chuang's optimization for migration downtime] Summary: we tried to access memory_listeners, address_spaces, etc. in RCU way. However we didn't implement them with RCU-safety. This patchset is trying to do that; at least making it closer. NOTE! It's doing it wrongly for now, so please feel free to see this as a thread to start discussing this problem, as in subject. The core problem here is how to make sure memory listeners will be freed in RCU ways, per when unlinking them from the global memory_listeners list.
Can you elaborate why we would want to do that? Is there a real reason we cannot hold the BQL when unregistering a listener?
Or could we use any other, more fine-grained, lock to protect the memory listeners?
Naive me would think that any interactions between someone updating the memory listeners, and a listener getting removed, would require some careful synchronization (to not rip a notifier out while someone else notifies -- what is the still registered notifier supposed to do with notifications while it is already going away?), instead of doing it via RCU.
I'm all for using RCU if it improves performance and keeps things simple. If RCU is neither required for performance reason and overcomplicates the implementation, maybe using locking is the better choice.
TBH, so far I thought that any memory_listeners register/unregistering *requires* the BQL, and everything else is a BUG.
-- Thanks, David / dhildenb
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |