From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:54:55 -0300
Message-ID: <20190816165455.GG5398@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190815193526.GT9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAKMK7uH42EgdxL18yce-7yay=x=Gb21nBs3nY7RA92Nsd-HCNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190815202721.GV21596@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uER0u1TqeJBXarKakphnyZTHOmedOfXXqLGVDE2mE-mAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190816010036.GA9915@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uH0oa10LoCiEbj1NqAfWitbdOa-jQm9hM=iNL-=8gH9nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190816121243.GB5398@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uHk03OD+N-anPf-ADPzvQJ_NbQXFh5WsVUo-Ewv9vcOAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190816143819.GE5398@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uGzOO4nZPbZzmaDjjBGZiV2HjgdbT45q9Rd5wTO14VH2w@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: <CAKMK7uGzOO4nZPbZzmaDjjBGZiV2HjgdbT45q9Rd5wTO14VH2w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, 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>, =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= 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.c>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:36:52PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some
> > > simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no
> > > way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like
> > > to get at least the others considered.
> >
> > Sure, I think for conflict avoidance reasons I'm probably taking
> > mmu_notifier stuff via hmm.git, so:
> >
> > - Andrew had a minor remark on #1, I am ambivalent and would take it
> >   as-is. Your decision if you want to respin.
> 
> I like mine better, see also the reply from Ralph Campbell.

Sure

> > - #2/#3 is this issue, I would stand by the preempt_disable/etc path
> >   Our situation matches yours, debug tests run lockdep/etc.
>
> Since Michal requested the current flavour I think we need spin a bit
> more on these here. I guess I'll just rebase them to the end so
> they're not holding up the others.
> 
> > - #4 I like a lot, except the map should enclose range_end too,
> >   this can be done after the mm_has_notifiers inside the
> >   __mmu_notifier function
> 
> To make sure I get this right: The same lockdep context, but also
> wrapped around invalidate_range_end? 

Yes, the locking context of _range_start and _range_end should be
identical, last time I checked callers this was the case.

So, just add it to __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() outside the
SRCU as there is no reason to burden debug kernel callers twice when
mmu notifiers are not enabled

Jason