Re: [PATCH] mm/mmu_notifier: Remove non_block_start/end() from notifier invocation

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 06:59:24PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On 11 August 2026 18:26:27 BST, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 06:22:12PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2026-08-11 at 13:24 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> > To be clear you should not be using any synchronize_[s]rcu() primitive
> >> > inside the invalidation callbacks. These are well known to have
> >> > multi-second delays on loaded systems which are a completely
> >> > inappropriate performance characteristic for these mm callbacks.
> >> > 
> >> > This statement has nothing to do with deadlock.
> >> > 
> >> > RCU is always a trade off, you can make the read side run really fast
> >> > and the write side is ghastly slow. If you can't handle the slow write
> >> > you shouldn't use RCU techniques.
> >> 
> >> The multi-second horror stories are about the *global* RCU/SRCU
> >> domains, where the grace period has to wait out arbitrary readers all
> >> over the kernel.
> >> 
> >> This is not that. It is a dedicated srcu_struct, private to one VM,
> >> and its entire reader population is a handful of KVM fast paths that
> >> until now were under irqsave rwlocks.
> >
> >Are you sure? I've never heard that srcu has those kinds of properties.
> >
> >If its so fast you should just propose a non-sleeping version and
> >leave the notifiers out of it
>
> I've got torture tests running for correctness on the GPC RCU
> conversion. I'll throw in some metrics on how often even in that
> pathological case we hit the wait case, and how long it actually
> takes.

Well, to hit the bad RCU cases you need to usually do some other
workload too..

I guess srcu does have some meaningful functional differences, but it
is hardly guaranteed to be fast or non-sleeping out of the box.

I guess you are making an arugment that if SRCU critical sections are
atomic themselves then the synchronize could also reasonably be
atomic. That seems plausible, and may be worth some additional API
surface on the SRCU side to expose this use model and drop the might
sleep that is causing the trouble.

Some sort of "atomic RCU" that has a slower reader but a faster atomic
writer.

I'm much happier to see a formal API under the notifiers that has
strong properties of being reasonable than KVM using SRCU in a way
that just happens to do that by accident, under the current
implementation..

Jason