Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers

From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	"Tetsuo Handa" <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	"Sudeep Dutt" <sudeep.dutt@intel.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	"Dimitri Sivanich" <sivanich@sgi.com>,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
	"Doug Ledford" <dledford@redhat.com>,
	"David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Leon Romanovsky" <leonro@mellanox.com>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	"Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>,
	"Mike Marciniszyn" <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
	"Dennis Dalessandro" <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:33:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180824173332.GD4244@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180824164003.GW29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:40:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 24-08-18 11:12:40, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> [...]
> > I am fine with Michal patch, i already said so couple month ago first time
> > this discussion did pop up, Michal you can add:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> 
> So I guess the below is the patch you were talking about?
> 
> From f7ac75277d526dccd011f343818dc6af627af2af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:32:24 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, mmu_notifier: be explicit about range invalition
>  non-blocking mode
> 
> If invalidate_range_start is called for !blocking mode then all
> callbacks have to guarantee they will no block/sleep. The same obviously
> applies to invalidate_range_end because this operation pairs with the
> former and they are called from the same context. Make sure this is
> appropriately documented.

In my branch i already updated HMM to be like other existing user
ie all blocking operation in the start callback. But yes it would
be wise to added such comments.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> index 133ba78820ee..698e371aafe3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> @@ -153,7 +153,9 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops {
>  	 *
>  	 * If blockable argument is set to false then the callback cannot
>  	 * sleep and has to return with -EAGAIN. 0 should be returned
> -	 * otherwise.
> +	 * otherwise. Please note that if invalidate_range_start approves
> +	 * a non-blocking behavior then the same applies to
> +	 * invalidate_range_end.
>  	 *
>  	 */
>  	int (*invalidate_range_start)(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> -- 
> 2.18.0
> 
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel