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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=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 2F408C41514 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:19:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E687621655 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="jlEJuZ04" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E687621655 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ziepe.ca Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 764F96B000A; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 08:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6EED46B000C; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 08:19:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 58E6C6B000D; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 08:19:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0218.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.218]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330696B000A for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 08:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D093B8248ACD for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:19:08 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75828195576.25.aunt76_89f3ac262cf28 X-HE-Tag: aunt76_89f3ac262cf28 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5566 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com (mail-qt1-f196.google.com [209.85.160.196]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:19:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id t12so5822513qtp.9 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 05:19:07 -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=bEaXAj2iniWEaSuyn0fH/kEDTRkIl1c5/RWuNELkR8k=; b=jlEJuZ04r4FfQRnSsDTdZ15gGG887mO3OlgLiS5KOdM/EzBvDtD+FVvFpCf4P/D/DI frDzy0JvoZ4ASbRUxBfxq+VBafmy6i1RohHZRDHW1JuD0RUOantYkeDrGj6nJAu3OzhD f+/Ek9pkIMkSwoxSy/qgajjsD1TfTK+u5nMYCCwMirwVEjP7Crpcx0vKg0u+issupd6f ytBhCE03xW7wOtyBD2RlHnjr3wEofPwarGLZUapHD3sOp9Ep2hSxfXwe0fbAsFdoQ95J cIJ4g27qSF4DkzKx3Ql2/UzoVwZ9pTqSajKxBQ+YphcyHXFp5lofa0olwQDzdNLT9q32 IwOA== 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=bEaXAj2iniWEaSuyn0fH/kEDTRkIl1c5/RWuNELkR8k=; b=gXPQC+NqRQOLOXyIXB1jNiOxtvj2Nh0LmWQmA/cYfEmvFMYyr4bbQwBO3gXNpkvXp7 JBKz+9WMWDLtX7GmojtSigDVKn3DgfpN9UPrwvXvy4roGlsTKuWKWLQANkMSN51o1ZeI VSOUGw0htPGb2xdyNegp8ONdADsjPhjgKPRRUIbsWdygvW+ctI794FsMXIK0NpS01t8Y y3guM+U34Yux2bjcWdDJwbEfdxbax0pJ6dimEnX1DpuVR6X2fUvP7EA/zF+BKlzG0FTm OQ97w1QLFDyA3Bq4CQGYLEOknqoWx/hsrAjq9T77uSgXhph0snJoqIrr6FIpLKnXzo7V d2Kw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWtgaK1nVXnhuCrpD9kKT0I6mcNwYikvYH52Vjsa8J8Nn3Q54Lx dwKED3OBN2pHQwDOF/Alm5urtg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwJ0xLOCEoe5le7pO6VtEfZW/wyQ9tx0UXL7Cr/GZtD4aFsgQFkuJBiYfOrdvN1joh+5J6bkg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5503:: with SMTP id j3mr8391055qtq.355.1565957947384; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 05:19:07 -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 f27sm2963616qkl.25.2019.08.16.05.19.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 05:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jgg by mlx.ziepe.ca with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hybCE-0001q2-67; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:19:06 -0300 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:19:06 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Michal Hocko Cc: LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, DRI Development , Intel Graphics Development , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= , =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse , Masahiro Yamada , Wei Wang , Andy Shevchenko , Thomas Gleixner , Jann Horn , Feng Tang , Kees Cook , Randy Dunlap , Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end() Message-ID: <20190816121906.GC5398@ziepe.ca> References: <20190815141219.GF21596@ziepe.ca> <20190815155950.GN9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190815165631.GK21596@ziepe.ca> <20190815174207.GR9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190815182448.GP21596@ziepe.ca> <20190815190525.GS9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190815191810.GR21596@ziepe.ca> <20190815193526.GT9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190815201323.GU21596@ziepe.ca> <20190816081029.GA27790@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190816081029.GA27790@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 15-08-19 17:13:23, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:35:26PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > The last detail is I'm still unclear what a GFP flags a blockable > > > > invalidate_range_start() should use. Is GFP_KERNEL OK? > > > > > > I hope I will not make this muddy again ;) > > > invalidate_range_start in the blockable mode can use/depend on any sleepable > > > allocation allowed in the context it is called from. > > > > 'in the context is is called from' is the magic phrase, as > > invalidate_range_start is called while holding several different mm > > related locks. I know at least write mmap_sem and i_mmap_rwsem > > (write?) > > > > Can GFP_KERNEL be called while holding those locks? > > i_mmap_rwsem would be problematic because it is taken during the > reclaim. Okay.. So the fs_reclaim debugging does catch errors. Do you have any reference for what a false positive looks like? I would like to inject it into the notifier path as this is very difficult for driver authors to discover and know about, but I'm worried about your false positive remark. I think I understand we can use only GFP_ATOMIC in the notifiers, but we need a strategy to handle OOM to guarentee forward progress. This is just more bugs to fix :( Jason