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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 0FB8CC31E5E for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2192173E for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:57:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ffwll.ch header.i=@ffwll.ch header.b="c98keUgt" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730164AbfFST53 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:57:29 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f195.google.com ([209.85.167.195]:34379 "EHLO mail-oi1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726143AbfFST53 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:57:29 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f195.google.com with SMTP id a128so318929oib.1 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ffwll.ch; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7z2tqXWz21B1V8yRVcYZ+guCUeprENU4KV1hN3na0Fs=; b=c98keUgte0uTFh2NqchAuIxnX8Q49/GZCgQczWFfVOcAzumkG95NuHQPDWP2WUsqo/ oCLbH0XtppVL+lGrn05uM9oLm3WIhfibqD8PTm4hTs0/e0Z+Pqsa2VuNsS3X9lc9qmmu Z3zqjTkCzBNUM3CWJvMoRhJP+YYYDv1DhjaEA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7z2tqXWz21B1V8yRVcYZ+guCUeprENU4KV1hN3na0Fs=; b=CTogo3fsEDoDNsc8K20UqFyV6J/E4rQmT8PkdDuebalZmmHN+WiZS+PSB9W9Vcr94N ljDK9XBObLY4bDokoTs79lryWLGGae38orCdvAJJXUYi5czlkc27orgbgw+3qj53Yc49 QZzC30eUm5MQBH80gma/DkRpfinXrOTM7T3Se6QpEnIhUeBbDD3/33eotJQ482dUgpra dm267r67jDer3VTfrdpyb+yAUr/YWa2JouFu/62w0tu6MnyBpOFkqguRX9tX5cmMmGmt VHuZP9IrLWX5/H/dJq4ioeColS0faO+vpOMdQfKntsK0CPCd3U+jBT3jEnKtNApffVyb SFGg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV98LhJqoezYoAp38eB1hap7sFuQwkv+wNilw3EHK9mhMQQb3F9 E+50mCBzSkn/Xu0PNYCmT2Z9Ce/FkygnDyItw/P6tXGf X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5ofouG26OMfQzFxsOzV+EiqO0k+h0EfPvx43Md1F3SX/w73DYzzvppOkjHYp+QM5aupN2Qz3/NdhkpYGtQiw= X-Received: by 2002:aca:b2d5:: with SMTP id b204mr3542425oif.101.1560974248386; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190520213945.17046-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20190521154411.GD3836@redhat.com> <20190618152215.GG12905@phenom.ffwll.local> <20190619165055.GI9360@ziepe.ca> In-Reply-To: <20190619165055.GI9360@ziepe.ca> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:57:15 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Jerome Glisse , Michal Hocko , Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics Development , LKML , DRI Development , Linux MM , David Rientjes , Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Morton , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 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 ... I can easily throw an unlikely around this here if that's the only thing that's blocking the merge. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch