From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "DRI Development" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linux MM" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.com>,
"David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 11:32:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521153200.GB3836@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190520213945.17046-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:39:44PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a
> possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't
> catch it.
>
> I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the
> might_sleep() callsites trigger, and it's a bit ugly in the code flow.
> But it gets the job done.
>
> Inspired by an i915 patch series which did exactly that, because the
> rules haven't been entirely clear to us.
>
> v2: Use the shiny new non_block_start/end annotations instead of
> abusing preempt_disable/enable.
>
> v3: Rebase on top of Glisse's arg rework.
>
> v4: Rebase on top of more Glisse rework.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
> mm/mmu_notifier.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index c05e406a7cd7..a09e737711d5 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -176,7 +176,13 @@ int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
> id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &range->mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist) {
> if (mn->ops->invalidate_range_start) {
> - int _ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, range);
> + int _ret;
> +
> + if (!mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range))
> + non_block_start();
> + _ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, range);
> + if (!mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range))
> + non_block_end();
This is a taste thing so feel free to ignore it as maybe other
will dislike more what i prefer:
+ if (!mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range)) {
+ non_block_start();
+ _ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, range);
+ non_block_end();
+ } else
+ _ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, range);
If only we had predicate on CPU like on GPU :)
In any case:
Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> if (_ret) {
> pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in %sblockable context.\n",
> mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret,
> --
> 2.20.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-21 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-20 21:39 [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail Daniel Vetter
2019-05-20 21:39 ` [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end() Daniel Vetter
2019-05-21 14:47 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2019-05-20 21:39 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable Daniel Vetter
2019-05-21 15:32 ` Jerome Glisse [this message]
2019-05-20 21:39 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, notifier: Add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start Daniel Vetter
2019-05-21 15:40 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-05-21 16:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-05-21 16:32 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-05-21 15:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail Jerome Glisse
2019-06-18 15:22 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-06-19 16:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-19 19:57 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-06-19 20:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-19 20:18 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-06-19 20:42 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-06-19 21:20 ` Daniel Vetter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-12-10 10:36 [PATCH 0/4] mmu notifier debug checks v2 Daniel Vetter
2018-12-10 10:36 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable Daniel Vetter
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=20190521153200.GB3836@redhat.com \
--to=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).