From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611B6C433EB for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:17:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01421207BB for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="bJZ16ap+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 01421207BB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chrisdown.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3E36F6B0002; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 393486B0003; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:17:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 282966B0005; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:17:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0167.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.167]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1311C6B0002 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D1D1022E23B for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:17:52 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77062286784.09.blood35_060f2b726f2e Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7CE184C7630 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:17:52 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: blood35_060f2b726f2e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3682 Received: from mail-ej1-f65.google.com (mail-ej1-f65.google.com [209.85.218.65]) by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:17:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f65.google.com with SMTP id br7so21811456ejb.5 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:17:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=92B9Cr8GU+Q5NgJRD18dkOQr+Iz15oRaXg+fWztZRyA=; b=bJZ16ap+pQMf7ty/juukMn4SocAmm/ff1ygm7N0ZhctiTX7Ns9EKRvJFGiWSYr6Fae MsLGWGopirywHezMYylNS3uCobm9k23Lu1ehcGBHC7UAgBWqRN2J7FceziM5zoLy3S5G nffshkNWk9HRgb8P+dihyPwG9xY0ajeCk1dpQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=92B9Cr8GU+Q5NgJRD18dkOQr+Iz15oRaXg+fWztZRyA=; b=LEryHCWm+wHJgd6E69/Ubp8dQl75b4ERr+P2KA4GaAcWn7ICSSK7kk2WPOJDgjGEtM I0F6B58iCk0OZp+BxfWf2AutS6uwUbPU+eGSWLtsVGlPAu08K+hzL9A4eFZYgca/0lzg UIjiGgwTpUXzcBp2t4stcvaKm57Nm2zAo3k/dxcI0BhUrxW98j24brBZfLKk6k9Qma/2 ca446d2YoRZUd2tUc1nF+rzPxcG1AxD51TdN6fy4OlS6LxY+tBnnxK3DgP5sc/Roeb5s dVjnMHTBYmsfDLzM61EiP+66oGug3YV23mzoQXe4haRWAW1V1j/MuChI3QLxG5wxL9Ur rqNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530dFT0SYMtv8A4uUVogY2lGkVLlYz9zTPsknlnZsjQch66noP0t DtST4cCpDRdo3nm4SzdVv9+8Tw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyccHcLc9w0tbdjL2+q9etH/eT/z0pNkYnnAk8OzzAk4DWaXSVGwWP1HddfI+2gNfO3RmPNWg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f907:: with SMTP id lc7mr20435966ejb.143.1595341070869; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c092:180::1:70f9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cw14sm17469727edb.88.2020.07.21.07.17.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:17:49 +0100 From: Chris Down To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Tim Chen , Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page Message-ID: <20200721141749.GA742741@chrisdown.name> References: <20200721063258.17140-1-mhocko@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200721063258.17140-1-mhocko@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7D7CE184C7630 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: I understand the pragmatic considerations here, but I'm quite concerned about the maintainability and long-term ability to reason about a patch like this. For example, how do we know when this patch is safe to remove? Also, what other precedent does this set for us covering for poor userspace behaviour? Speaking as a systemd maintainer, if udev could be doing something better on these machines, we'd be more than receptive to help fix it. In general I am against explicit watchdog tweaking here because a.) there's potential to mask other problems, and b.) it seems like the kind of one-off trivia nobody is going to remember exists when doing complex debugging in future. Is there anything preventing this being remedied in udev, instead of the kernel?