From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org,
"DRI Development" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Masahiro Yamada" <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
"Wei Wang" <wvw@google.com>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Jann Horn" <jannh@google.com>, "Feng Tang" <feng.tang@intel.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:17:49 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190815171749.GM21596@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190815171156.GB30916@redhat.com>
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:11:56PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:56:31PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 06:00:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > > AFAIK 'GFP_NOWAIT' is characterized by the lack of __GFP_FS and
> > > > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM..
> > > >
> > > > This matches the existing test in __need_fs_reclaim() - so if you are
> > > > OK with GFP_NOFS, aka __GFP_IO which triggers try_to_compact_pages(),
> > > > allocations during OOM, then I think fs_reclaim already matches what
> > > > you described?
> > >
> > > No GFP_NOFS is equally bad. Please read my other email explaining what
> > > the oom_reaper actually requires. In short no blocking on direct or
> > > indirect dependecy on memory allocation that might sleep.
> >
> > It is much easier to follow with some hints on code, so the true
> > requirement is that the OOM repear not block on GFP_FS and GFP_IO
> > allocations, great, that constraint is now clear.
> >
> > > If you can express that in the existing lockdep machinery. All
> > > fine. But then consider deployments where lockdep is no-no because
> > > of the overhead.
> >
> > This is all for driver debugging. The point of lockdep is to find all
> > these paths without have to hit them as actual races, using debug
> > kernels.
> >
> > I don't think we need this kind of debugging on production kernels?
> >
> > > > The best we got was drivers tested the VA range and returned success
> > > > if they had no interest. Which is a big win to be sure, but it looks
> > > > like getting any more is not really posssible.
> > >
> > > And that is already a great win! Because many notifiers only do care
> > > about particular mappings. Please note that backing off unconditioanlly
> > > will simply cause that the oom reaper will have to back off not doing
> > > any tear down anything.
> >
> > Well, I'm working to propose that we do the VA range test under core
> > mmu notifier code that cannot block and then we simply remove the idea
> > of blockable from drivers using this new 'range notifier'.
> >
> > I think this pretty much solves the concern?
>
> I am not sure i follow what you propose here ? Like i pointed out in
> another email for GPU we do need to be able to sleep (we might get
> lucky and not need too but this is runtime thing) within notifier
> range_start callback. This has been something allow by notifier since
> it has been introduced in the kernel.
Sorry, I mean remove the idea of the blockable flag from the
drivers. Drivers will always be able to block, within the existing
limitation of fs_reclaim
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-15 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-14 20:20 [PATCH 0/5] hmm & mmu_notifier debug/lockdep annotations Daniel Vetter
2019-08-14 20:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to fail Daniel Vetter
2019-08-14 22:14 ` Andrew Morton
2019-08-14 23:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-14 23:34 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-08-16 17:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-14 20:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end() Daniel Vetter
2019-08-14 20:45 ` Andrew Morton
2019-08-15 6:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 8:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 13:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 13:12 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 14:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 14:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 15:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 16:25 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 17:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 17:39 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 18:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 18:27 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 18:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 16:32 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 17:16 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 17:21 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 17:35 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 13:24 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 22:15 ` Andrew Morton
2019-08-16 8:24 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-14 23:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 6:58 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 12:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 14:12 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 16:00 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 16:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 17:11 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 17:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2019-08-15 17:42 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 17:57 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 18:24 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 19:05 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 19:18 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 19:35 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 20:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 8:10 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-16 12:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-15 20:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 20:27 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 20:49 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-16 1:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 6:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-16 12:12 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 14:11 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-16 14:38 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 16:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-16 16:54 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 8:27 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-14 20:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 0:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 7:02 ` Daniel Vetter
[not found] ` <20190815123556.GB21596@ziepe.ca>
2019-08-17 16:09 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-14 20:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm, notifier: Add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 0:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 7:10 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 12:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-14 20:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm/hmm: WARN on illegal ->sync_cpu_device_pagetables errors Daniel Vetter
2019-08-15 0:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 7:14 ` 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=20190815171749.GM21596@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wvw@google.com \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.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).