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_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 35D06C3A59C for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D848F2077C for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="LA5Y5Kjp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D848F2077C 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 842026B0005; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7F3246B0006; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:54:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7092A6B0007; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:54:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0209.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.209]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBD66B0005 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E084775A7 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:54:57 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75828890634.11.lock53_4862d12b55b37 X-HE-Tag: lock53_4862d12b55b37 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6134 Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com (mail-qt1-f194.google.com [209.85.160.194]) by imf35.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:54:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f194.google.com with SMTP id l9so6779083qtu.6 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:54:57 -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=QVJMIAUNTcfruK5R8LRJMxtWPGPQI7Ry9GEDvODlN1s=; b=LA5Y5Kjpj+D3o1u9JwoTLIjvYl0rV0tZs9iEM17KKWIaqJu/ZgkkQSR4NyhNUDlRqH FjmblR9wtS87K1VeqFzXFQsiypgT9FKdVQKn9t0k6GgL7ZaWTn+75LYisquhf2MDrKP9 D1076HoCBt9rn1J2iGrU4/d2vqtGTBo0qMc6MmFnT/dxxMPTYtbdtXAoMBBIaQPArPnm 8q9QeFOc8zJy4t+M9Tm4RZsZwy0eLpF51wJyDXxF9h5NpFTRTHZHoo2uEP20LmlydZZw wsRccukrRvnx42UcxrjqGJJ70J68Nv5+rYWjBEpWmNdc11451J1vravRwY6UsghcO+fY Ra0w== 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=QVJMIAUNTcfruK5R8LRJMxtWPGPQI7Ry9GEDvODlN1s=; b=IdnhqGzPJHEKY4mjAGk+xMh0LQBV3q9xd76UdxmI4jEyWXAtmgUc5h3XE8A4yZ53vi WUcOcuTm/ynep1lAD0MnOcVsj+iSuX/r3aLlrC3/oOB0bR2BKqvkUEot9SNApGXb0Xdh l4Pc+Iq58xHkom9SfdtA/c0fGb2mfV2GIobJVToiDpFHPufquoqMjmMpIBXGHSGqjCwl MH65jGB205rEQUb0B+cnAV712vDG+mK4XtYqWdztJVkQt1FSSaglaJVzjFmIPJXwf5ZK ctULMJlVOyni7sqD3CwazKliiJvalJQs81rmZvSxGuw6V12RL1IQMsyolStlHB1rnUGG 61nA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWZEJwhNoRM4rng1ByBPLcHKwAokgin4U9L3DbPJGtC9sDu1SqX ncyby77Dzq4CLju1BPxuS1VUYQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJNDVhKHutNxdNtyYoqetLe4kBGy2raMs/xBZz5bY8799Ba9b9YZFIevc1Y93TXGetBoIvow== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c93b:: with SMTP id r56mr2557476qvj.139.1565974496715; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:54:56 -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 g28sm3802062qte.46.2019.08.16.09.54.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jgg by mlx.ziepe.ca with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hyfV9-0008Ub-Us; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:54:55 -0300 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:54:55 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Michal Hocko , Feng Tang , Randy Dunlap , Kees Cook , Masahiro Yamada , Peter Zijlstra , Intel Graphics Development , Jann Horn , LKML , DRI Development , Linux MM , =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , David Rientjes , Wei Wang , Daniel Vetter , Andrew Morton , Andy Shevchenko , Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end() Message-ID: <20190816165455.GG5398@ziepe.ca> References: <20190815193526.GT9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190815202721.GV21596@ziepe.ca> <20190816010036.GA9915@ziepe.ca> <20190816121243.GB5398@ziepe.ca> <20190816143819.GE5398@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) 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 06:36:52PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some > > > simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no > > > way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like > > > to get at least the others considered. > > > > Sure, I think for conflict avoidance reasons I'm probably taking > > mmu_notifier stuff via hmm.git, so: > > > > - Andrew had a minor remark on #1, I am ambivalent and would take it > > as-is. Your decision if you want to respin. > > I like mine better, see also the reply from Ralph Campbell. Sure > > - #2/#3 is this issue, I would stand by the preempt_disable/etc path > > Our situation matches yours, debug tests run lockdep/etc. > > Since Michal requested the current flavour I think we need spin a bit > more on these here. I guess I'll just rebase them to the end so > they're not holding up the others. > > > - #4 I like a lot, except the map should enclose range_end too, > > this can be done after the mm_has_notifiers inside the > > __mmu_notifier function > > To make sure I get this right: The same lockdep context, but also > wrapped around invalidate_range_end? Yes, the locking context of _range_start and _range_end should be identical, last time I checked callers this was the case. So, just add it to __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() outside the SRCU as there is no reason to burden debug kernel callers twice when mmu notifiers are not enabled Jason