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 E47B1C4646C for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3424215EA for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="EaQyYCuf" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730411AbfFSUmp (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:42:45 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:43665 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726230AbfFSUmp (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:42:45 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id m14so433186qka.10 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:42:44 -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=TBgu1F4abnQgrkAM7sC23aDSMvrhGnN7FBKN+b/i6is=; b=EaQyYCufZoEOHUrhA5C65HJeWWPQ44TPFwOFRGPSs/kadihvsNLaI7C/q5Lx8nN+Ag sSDJ00GlbBb7AJQltrBt4pAJwniFtTcJwmPfocq+9b/luxO0IGfSUSCUcqNBfJDLTEJK tB9u05+y9B2z2wjTFsd1vtJjyBLIpYpd/eq94rM0W2qq4HuwikeZhRhGE2DCMw8Kh+XN k5mEjEVJVKN3SSaBa9vFnUXWcZjDEkf4Rj6INQpXctWJQ+wQ2KMy1BsL2lqcmQdWLVPw rX7ZLwMaAvHaIuHIm75mR3SW8q1aJpTlLjILf0Y2XNeQqa7qWoAclPlvugKKMyVxXGnU tGhQ== 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=TBgu1F4abnQgrkAM7sC23aDSMvrhGnN7FBKN+b/i6is=; b=A2+qjXejrZjUVtor6sC5FT/XB9BMZUW2b1KoQFhneRa9LHkDa5991gQjaXuzB6uJQY FDKEGE6LO5u9rHZZcV7hr4mjo+iLVpWlLhwONnaySGEJWpU5JXJO7slvxxsi0q1XBLm1 itGr46knnEjkdfkFiSnnBO+WhmK4PrLsVcp0jVEW9VpEU+491DN7AlEv/xHA88sJgPyI xjaOzMwflkIJelcaOKsGpzS7k8Dk5XA9LF80hH8wM1luII4tXU6HGLp9b9gxt4oVsvMW DsCskQjJKFVSS1EllcrtfqblrOfXVMUpZkG4ZVoNsiYSAg1tHvwmCPSXHRU73plPqAZe Y8qw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUkZ6D4tVHog52aZEZo/m2zbqIlps3ay3pBrF8cxTuhsaDDzE7j 3ID8dd8+jcyNX/D/41ZmFLBqSg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwkpP3oHvZN3nRaQ3RbrtVXeyrf0MwnUp9n/IQIWK8LXxln8+qpmD6ZJN85f7XPHS4TGxx0zg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:a854:: with SMTP id r81mr25171872qke.53.1560976964070; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:42:44 -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 q36sm14171694qtc.12.2019.06.19.13.42.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jgg by mlx.ziepe.ca with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hdhPn-00033G-4Y; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:42:43 -0300 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:42:43 -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: <20190619204243.GM9360@ziepe.ca> References: <20190520213945.17046-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20190521154411.GD3836@redhat.com> <20190618152215.GG12905@phenom.ffwll.local> <20190619165055.GI9360@ziepe.ca> <20190619201340.GL9360@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 10:18:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:13 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > 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. > > Hm right. > > Anyway, I'm happy to repaint the bikeshed in any color that's desired, > if that helps with landing it. WARN_WITHOUT_BACKTRACE might take a bit > longer (need to find a bit of time, plus it'll definitely attract more > comments). I was actually just writing something very similar when looking at the hmm things.. Also, is the test backwards? mmu_notifier_range_blockable() == true means the callback must return zero mmu_notififer_range_blockable() == false means the callback can return 0 or -EAGAIN. Suggest this: pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in %sblockable context.\n", mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret, !mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range) ? "non-" : ""); + WARN_ON(mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range) || + _ret != -EAGAIN); ret = _ret; } } To express the API invariant. Jason