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

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.

Each of those read-side sections is a few hundred instructions over a
single page of guest memory — they never allocate, never take a lock,
never sleep. The number of readers in existence at any instant is
bounded by the number of vCPUs plus a few interrupt contexts, and the
grace period is bounded by the longest of those sections.

I should actually change to synchronize_srcu_expedited() — and perhaps
we could ponder an even more expedited mode which does the first check
directly and in the common case doesn't even *use* the workqueue — but
even without doing that, the write side is never going to be as
"ghastly slow" as you seem to think, *even* for the tiny handful of
virtual addresses for which it even kicks in at all.