From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929081948.SDjC7-smlKEyn9KXEOgghEpI67-_prbtXSlkyqUS-1s@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:20:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082008.0CepXhTdkl6GfzQ93hf1QTlMI9OuZ-SW-BUabtPDoP4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:21:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082121.l4gss6SIN9tyRe6VEIsJWTGiayhPkJ0y8Z3Y42P4wCU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:23:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082324.IfBCDP-BI_B906MQEiFkwrr4j-EOgQCBoui4OohKmGc@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929081948.CRFySOrdkvC8cgf8Z0h7iuWlfwz5rDKOKGl0jT2CiUc@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:20:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082008.q2hAMZCVHUJcsw1TSHYr9L6EuM3AtnRz-6SGPIXjIgU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:21:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082121.BWnstl-CR-LYSsV_6VdJqqaVKq3gmj4qJQyQY-nMvpk@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:23:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082324.kx5jvSUSkzNk893oa2yw1MUbVTjsZpS38CX9H3ggbMU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:21:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082121.AayUL6cmM91WqadoeAIRDWRav6rKHqZ3AFoCCVimq9I@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:20:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082008.qpa3vl3lFuGVNZ-42dzF_YPLDO3Qcxr2qJsQJ7fYXVU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929081938.cbyJdX6O6NTJ9ZMmF8AHaiBljYVpkqPkpy55EWseFFw@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:23:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082324.8famVQB5auZveQpBwcIc-bLaXiTN4xv0cMhsg7igPNs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929081948.Adqz3HYptqIrvGp8gPwfSc40ueLQlI7RVmAJXBpnuew@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:20:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082008.S7hCrmQRfpYkcAjIo2TAnYchy0xO9lJn7IPIopNtL8Y@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:21:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082121.5YVpvTrVCGBZs1h7zSLWWk4FeqUP2AEkncT-kl3LwVo@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:23:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20200929082324.HftM9Jl9iqt0ZmCTD_jW4UAADw6JfJX1PNMdnJXRS_Q@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:19:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHL2dMv80b8uBXr=BqHD2TQeODQQM1MGYhAfCYbX7sLrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> I can
> then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
> most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> path than rcu code.
Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
This is not a random allocation mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-29 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 282+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-14 20:42 [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 01/13] lib/debug: Remove pointless ARCH_NO_PREEMPT dependencies Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 02/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 03/13] preempt: Clenaup PREEMPT_COUNT leftovers Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 10:56 ` [Intel-gfx] " Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 04/13] lockdep: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 16:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:11 ` [Intel-gfx] " Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 05/13] mm/pagemap: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 0:52 ` kernel test robot
2020-09-15 0:52 ` kernel test robot
2020-09-15 2:40 ` kernel test robot
2020-09-15 5:28 ` kernel test robot
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 06/13] locking/bitspinlock: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 16:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-15 16:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 07/13] uaccess: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 08/13] sched: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 10:56 ` [Intel-gfx] " Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 09/13] ARM: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 10/13] xtensa: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 11/13] drm/i915: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 12/13] rcutorture: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 13/13] preempt: Remove PREEMPT_COUNT from Kconfig Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:54 ` [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Steven Rostedt
2020-09-14 20:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-09-14 20:54 ` [Intel-gfx] " Steven Rostedt
2020-09-14 20:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-09-14 20:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-09-14 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 20:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 21:55 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:24 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 3:21 ` [PATCH] crypto: lib/chacha20poly1305 - Set SG_MITER_ATOMIC unconditionally Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 3:21 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 3:21 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 3:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 3:21 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 3:30 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:03 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:40 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 6:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 7:05 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 7:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 9:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 10:02 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 10:05 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 10:08 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 10:10 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 19:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 7:08 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:20 ` [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:20 ` [Intel-gfx] " Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:22 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:22 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:22 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:22 ` [Intel-gfx] " Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:22 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 6:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 6:39 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 6:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 6:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 7:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 7:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 7:24 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:29 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 8:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 8:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 8:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 8:39 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 8:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 19:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 19:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 19:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 19:57 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 19:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 19:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-16 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 7:37 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 7:37 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 7:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 7:37 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 7:37 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 15:29 ` [Intel-gfx] " Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:32 ` [Intel-gfx] " Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:43 ` [Intel-gfx] " Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 6:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-17 6:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-17 6:38 ` [Intel-gfx] " Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-17 6:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-17 6:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-16 20:29 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 20:29 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 20:29 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 20:29 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 20:29 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 20:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:58 ` [Intel-gfx] " Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 21:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 21:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 21:43 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 21:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 21:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 22:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 22:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 22:39 ` [Intel-gfx] " Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 22:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 22:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 7:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-17 7:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-17 7:52 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-09-17 7:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-17 7:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-17 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 16:28 ` [Intel-gfx] " Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-09-29 8:23 ` [Intel-gfx] " Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:20 ` [Intel-gfx] " Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:20 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:20 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:20 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` [Intel-gfx] " Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` [Intel-gfx] " Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 9:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-29 9:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-29 9:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-09-29 9:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-29 9:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-29 14:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 14:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 14:54 ` [Intel-gfx] " Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 14:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 14:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-16 19:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-16 19:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-16 19:23 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-16 19:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-16 19:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-16 20:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:48 ` [Intel-gfx] " Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 20:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-15 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-15 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-15 17:25 ` [Intel-gfx] " Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-15 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-15 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-15 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-14 22:01 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bcain@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chris@zankel.net \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.