From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end() Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:14:28 -0700 Message-ID: <20190822161428.c9e4479207386d34745ea111@linux-foundation.org> References: <20190820081902.24815-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20190820081902.24815-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20190820202440.GH11147@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190820202440.GH11147@phenom.ffwll.local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: LKML , Linux MM , DRI Development , Intel Graphics Development , Daniel Vetter , Jason Gunthorpe , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Michal Hocko , David Rientjes , Christian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me?= Glisse , Masahiro Yamada , Wei Wang , Andy Shevchenko , Thomas Gleixner , Jann Horn , Feng Tang , Kees Cook List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 22:24:40 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Iirc you've been involved at least somewhat in discussing this. -mm folks > are a bit undecided whether these new non_block semantics are a good idea. > Michal Hocko still is in support, but Andrew Morton and Jason Gunthorpe > are less enthusiastic. Jason said he's ok with merging the hmm side of > this if scheduler folks ack. If not, then I'll respin with the > preempt_disable/enable instead like in v1. I became mollified once Michel explained the rationale. I think it's OK. It's very specific to the oom reaper and hopefully won't be used more widely(?).