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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable 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 A5B34C43613 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEBD214AF for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="cLoTJVoj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730070AbfFSUNm (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:13:42 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:40698 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726322AbfFSUNm (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:13:42 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id c70so386340qkg.7 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=pgcngtEs9uVcYhtJPpPurWF53FUixqD8oD/gTijpCZs=; b=cLoTJVojiiY28gDdbS4BiMud3Q2ttCA35wRWS9+enmEKV/fFhoK5HMbRgWCMRNjzCQ b5ZrG1xcUBu7h6XelJpG4UMUjYJIzXdXfvpPiSyGYKdOweQ8twH8VntPLrq71j/TsSLy jpJZxemlj6uSAxjIlpkxEfVLL6t4SnPV1Na+7aRJWlC/JUKSKlZ2Kb2Z4WwTJsvlN637 Cevv50iZDvZBGXCN6Gv70gfCH3gmRKeT9j0XQcvmKxIGDNpJ19N3X2W+pEIfCgtmESSX foHoQot+LMBKmcpM4/NBKgRFPmN0qLPKRN6ubqbiqKhMYESz50hc7k0uZOGPL7CFxZJG aZsA== 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=pgcngtEs9uVcYhtJPpPurWF53FUixqD8oD/gTijpCZs=; b=m2T+SdeHtxfs54neGJ9fEneuBOeDh5CRuthaypgCCTgn9lIdplM0ZUnJOMlOWlrwRh tc81ukvkmKtNwZZ7wZJ2zPEn5XPdd9AJnZNhH+YlIz5zBtd7jtKc3o8i+pORVHpMK32b hyJlSvWcNCwVb9LBdOKhPGW4YOz8zBfP8L6PiSxNyMjICa2vNJvphyK7Rm3AMw7r7w7D AaC+DT10kB3sB24fcOKlMetwEl+SNTQeKFeJtGKixphlvFLO0n2LvEgTr/UA8OwP3B8m Zbpno2+0dxsgdG6PB1tBLvVplaq9EgrzhuVNdlb1EwBb+3JUDg8bAhDUbOl+XgmVzqsD 0pog== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVNvKsATJJ+Fnw0PUlvULzoxiz5pL3YrZtEoI32pv6tEv8aWoib 6KBVDVhG3zzgkYIMTMOISTZcsQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx89CcDrXNyjbTWXMmP5tm+atmaNtgywjB10MJ+6xvDJdWKl3S7Qx9ZNBRu4t92EqyHMT9VzA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:4cd2:: with SMTP id z201mr54688926qka.284.1560975221161; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ziepe.ca (hlfxns017vw-156-34-55-100.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.ns.bellaliant.net. [156.34.55.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 34sm12796326qtq.59.2019.06.19.13.13.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jgg by mlx.ziepe.ca with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hdgxg-0002nE-42; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:13:40 -0300 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:13:40 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Jerome Glisse , Michal Hocko , Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics Development , LKML , DRI Development , Linux MM , David Rientjes , Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Morton , Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail Message-ID: <20190619201340.GL9360@ziepe.ca> References: <20190520213945.17046-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20190521154411.GD3836@redhat.com> <20190618152215.GG12905@phenom.ffwll.local> <20190619165055.GI9360@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 09:57:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:50 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 05:22:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:44:11AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:39:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > > > > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier > > > > > implementation might fail when it's not allowed to. > > > > > > > > > > Inspired by some confusion we had discussing i915 mmu notifiers and > > > > > whether we could use the newly-introduced return value to handle some > > > > > corner cases. Until we realized that these are only for when a task > > > > > has been killed by the oom reaper. > > > > > > > > > > An alternative approach would be to split the callback into two > > > > > versions, one with the int return value, and the other with void > > > > > return value like in older kernels. But that's a lot more churn for > > > > > fairly little gain I think. > > > > > > > > > > Summary from the m-l discussion on why we want something at warning > > > > > level: This allows automated tooling in CI to catch bugs without > > > > > humans having to look at everything. If we just upgrade the existing > > > > > pr_info to a pr_warn, then we'll have false positives. And as-is, no > > > > > one will ever spot the problem since it's lost in the massive amounts > > > > > of overall dmesg noise. > > > > > > > > > > v2: Drop the full WARN_ON backtrace in favour of just a pr_warn for > > > > > the problematic case (Michal Hocko). > > > > I disagree with this v2 note, the WARN_ON/WARN will trigger checkers > > like syzkaller to report a bug, while a random pr_warn probably will > > not. > > > > I do agree the backtrace is not useful here, but we don't have a > > warn-no-backtrace version.. > > > > IMHO, kernel/driver bugs should always be reported by WARN & > > friends. We never expect to see the print, so why do we care how big > > it is? > > > > Also note that WARN integrates an unlikely() into it so the codegen is > > automatically a bit more optimal that the if & pr_warn combination. > > Where do you make a difference between a WARN without backtrace and a > pr_warn? They're both dumped at the same log-level ... WARN panics the kernel when you set /proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_warn So auto testing tools can set that and get a clean detection that the kernel has failed the test in some way. Otherwise you are left with frail/ugly grepping of dmesg. Jason