From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:27:38 +0200
Message-ID: <20190816082738.GC27790@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20190815132127.GI9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815141219.GF21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190815155950.GN9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815165631.GK21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190815174207.GR9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815182448.GP21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190815190525.GS9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815191810.GR21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190815193526.GT9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAKMK7uH42EgdxL18yce-7yay=x=Gb21nBs3nY7RA92Nsd-HCNA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uH42EgdxL18yce-7yay=x=Gb21nBs3nY7RA92Nsd-HCNA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.co>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu 15-08-19 22:16:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:35 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > > The last detail is I'm still unclear what a GFP flags a blockable
> > > invalidate_range_start() should use. Is GFP_KERNEL OK?
> >
> > I hope I will not make this muddy again ;)
> > invalidate_range_start in the blockable mode can use/depend on any sleepable
> > allocation allowed in the context it is called from. So in other words
> > it is no different from any other function in the kernel that calls into
> > allocator. As the API is missing gfp context then I hope it is not
> > called from any restricted contexts (except from the oom which we have
> > !blockable for).
> 
> Hm, that's new to me. I thought mmu notifiers very much can be called
> from direct reclaim paths, so you have to be extremely careful with
> getting back into that one.

Correct, I should have added that notifier callbacks ideally do not
allocate any memory. They can block and even that is quite a pain to be
honest.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs