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

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Mon 02-07-18 14:13:42, Christian Konig wrote:
> Am 02.07.2018 um 13:54 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > On Mon 02-07-18 11:14:58, Christian Konig wrote:
> > > Am 27.06.2018 um 09:44 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > > > This is the v2 of RFC based on the feedback I've received so far. The
> > > > code even compiles as a bonus ;) I haven't runtime tested it yet, mostly
> > > > because I have no idea how.
> > > > 
> > > > Any further feedback is highly appreciated of course.
> > > That sounds like it should work and at least the amdgpu changes now look
> > > good to me on first glance.
> > > 
> > > Can you split that up further in the usual way? E.g. adding the blockable
> > > flag in one patch and fixing all implementations of the MMU notifier in
> > > follow up patches.
> > But such a code would be broken, no? Ignoring the blockable state will
> > simply lead to lockups until the fixup parts get applied.
> 
> Well to still be bisect-able you only need to get the interface change in
> first with fixing the function signature of the implementations.

That would only work if those functions return -AGAIN unconditionally.
Otherwise they would pretend to not block while that would be obviously
incorrect. This doesn't sound correct to me.

> Then add all the new code to the implementations and last start to actually
> use the new interface.
> 
> That is a pattern we use regularly and I think it's good practice to do
> this.

But we do rely on the proper blockable handling.

> > Is the split up really worth it? I was thinking about that but had hard
> > times to end up with something that would be bisectable. Well, except
> > for returning -EBUSY until all notifiers are implemented. Which I found
> > confusing.
> 
> It at least makes reviewing changes much easier, cause as driver maintainer
> I can concentrate on the stuff only related to me.
> 
> Additional to that when you cause some unrelated side effect in a driver we
> can much easier pinpoint the actual change later on when the patch is
> smaller.
> 
> > 
> > > This way I'm pretty sure Felix and I can give an rb on the amdgpu/amdkfd
> > > changes.
> > If you are worried to give r-b only for those then this can be done even
> > for larger patches. Just make your Reviewd-by more specific
> > R-b: name # For BLA BLA
> 
> Yeah, possible alternative but more work for me when I review it :)

I definitely do not want to add more work to reviewers and I completely
see how massive "flag days" like these are not popular but I really
didn't find a reasonable way around that would be both correct and
wouldn't add much more churn on the way. So if you really insist then I
would really appreciate a hint on the way to achive the same without any
above downsides.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs