All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2020 10:12:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200604081224.863494-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604081224.863494-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").

But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
__GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
recursion.

I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
annotate for that specific case.

Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
two contexts arent the same.

Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.

With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
strictly more powerful.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
-Daniel
---
 mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
 mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
 	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
-		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
-		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
-	}
-
 	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
 		/*
 		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
 #include <trace/events/oom.h>
 #include <linux/prefetch.h>
 #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
+#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
 #include <linux/migrate.h>
 #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
 #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
@@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
 static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
 	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
 
-static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
+static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
 
@@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
 		return false;
 
-	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
-		return false;
-
 	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
 		return false;
 
@@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
 
 void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+
+		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
 
 void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_release();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_release();
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
 #endif
-- 
2.26.2


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH 01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2020 10:12:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200604081224.863494-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604081224.863494-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").

But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
__GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
recursion.

I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
annotate for that specific case.

Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
two contexts arent the same.

Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.

With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
strictly more powerful.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
-Daniel
---
 mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
 mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
 	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
-		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
-		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
-	}
-
 	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
 		/*
 		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
 #include <trace/events/oom.h>
 #include <linux/prefetch.h>
 #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
+#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
 #include <linux/migrate.h>
 #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
 #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
@@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
 static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
 	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
 
-static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
+static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
 
@@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
 		return false;
 
-	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
-		return false;
-
 	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
 		return false;
 
@@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
 
 void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+
+		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
 
 void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_release();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_release();
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
 #endif
-- 
2.26.2

_______________________________________________
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: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2020 10:12:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200604081224.863494-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604081224.863494-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").

But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
__GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
recursion.

I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
annotate for that specific case.

Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
two contexts arent the same.

Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.

With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
strictly more powerful.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
-Daniel
---
 mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
 mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
 	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
-		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
-		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
-	}
-
 	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
 		/*
 		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
 #include <trace/events/oom.h>
 #include <linux/prefetch.h>
 #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
+#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
 #include <linux/migrate.h>
 #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
 #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
@@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
 static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
 	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
 
-static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
+static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
 
@@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
 		return false;
 
-	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
-		return false;
-
 	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
 		return false;
 
@@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
 
 void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+
+		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
 
 void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_release();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_release();
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
 #endif
-- 
2.26.2

_______________________________________________
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: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH 01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2020 10:12:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200604081224.863494-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604081224.863494-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").

But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
__GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
recursion.

I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
annotate for that specific case.

Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
two contexts arent the same.

Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.

With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
strictly more powerful.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
-Daniel
---
 mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
 mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
 	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
-		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
-		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
-	}
-
 	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
 		/*
 		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
 #include <trace/events/oom.h>
 #include <linux/prefetch.h>
 #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
+#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
 #include <linux/migrate.h>
 #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
 #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
@@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
 static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
 	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
 
-static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
+static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
 
@@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
 		return false;
 
-	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
-		return false;
-
 	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
 		return false;
 
@@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
 
 void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+
+		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
 
 void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_release();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_release();
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
 #endif
-- 
2.26.2

_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-04  8:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 421+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-04  8:12 [PATCH 00/18] dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2 Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [PATCH 01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 12:01   ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-10 12:01     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-10 12:01     ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-10 12:01     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-10 12:25     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 12:25       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 12:25       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 12:25       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 19:41   ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 19:41     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 19:41     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 19:41     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 14:29     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-11 14:29       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-11 14:29       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-21 17:42     ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:42       ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:42       ` [Intel-gfx] " Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:42       ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 18:07       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 18:07         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 18:07         ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 18:07         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 20:01         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 20:01           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 20:01           ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 20:01           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 22:09           ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 22:09             ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 22:09             ` [Intel-gfx] " Qian Cai
2020-06-21 22:09             ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 16:17           ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 16:17             ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 16:17             ` [Intel-gfx] " Qian Cai
2020-06-23 16:17             ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 22:13             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:13               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:13               ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:13               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:29               ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 22:29                 ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 22:29                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Qian Cai
2020-06-23 22:29                 ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 22:31       ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-23 22:31         ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-23 22:31         ` [Intel-gfx] " Dave Chinner
2020-06-23 22:31         ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-23 22:36         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:36           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:36           ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:36           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 17:00   ` [PATCH 01/18] " Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:00     ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:00     ` [Intel-gfx] " Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:00     ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:28     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 17:28       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 17:28       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 17:28       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 17:46       ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:46         ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:46         ` [Intel-gfx] " Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:46         ` Qian Cai
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 02/18] dma-buf: minor doc touch-ups Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 13:07   ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-10 13:07     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-10 13:07     ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-10 13:07     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-12  7:05   ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:05     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-24 19:32     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-24 19:32       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 03/18] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:57   ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-04  8:57     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-04  8:57     ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-04  8:57     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-04  9:21     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  9:21       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  9:21       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  9:21       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  9:26       ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-04  9:26         ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-04  9:26         ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2020-06-04  9:36         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  9:36           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  9:36           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  9:36           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 13:29   ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 13:29     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 13:29     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 13:29     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 14:30     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-05 14:30       ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-05 14:30       ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-05 14:30       ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-11  9:57     ` Maarten Lankhorst
2020-06-11  9:57       ` Maarten Lankhorst
2020-06-11  9:57       ` [Intel-gfx] " Maarten Lankhorst
2020-06-11  9:57       ` Maarten Lankhorst
2020-06-10 14:21   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/18] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-10 14:21     ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-10 14:21     ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-10 14:21     ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-10 15:17     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 15:17       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 15:17       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 15:17       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 10:36       ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 10:36         ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 10:36         ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 10:36         ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 11:29         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 11:29           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 11:29           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 11:29           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 14:29           ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 14:29             ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 14:29             ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 14:29             ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 15:03             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 15:03               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 15:03               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 15:03               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11  8:00   ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-11  8:00     ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-11  8:00     ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2020-06-11  8:44     ` Dave Airlie
2020-06-11  8:44       ` Dave Airlie
2020-06-11  8:44       ` [Intel-gfx] " Dave Airlie
2020-06-11  8:44       ` Dave Airlie
2020-06-11  9:01       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Stone
2020-06-11  9:01         ` Daniel Stone
2020-06-11  9:01         ` Daniel Stone
2020-06-11  9:01         ` Daniel Stone
2020-06-19  8:25         ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19  8:25           ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19  8:25           ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19  8:51           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  8:51             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  8:51             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  8:51             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  9:13             ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19  9:13               ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19  9:13               ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19  9:43               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  9:43                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  9:43                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  9:43                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 13:12                 ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19 13:12                   ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19 13:12                   ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-22  9:16                   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-22  9:16                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-22  9:16                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-22  9:16                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-07-09  7:29                 ` Daniel Stone
2020-07-09  7:29                   ` Daniel Stone
2020-07-09  7:29                   ` Daniel Stone
2020-07-09  7:29                   ` Daniel Stone
2020-07-09  8:01                   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-07-09  8:01                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-07-09  8:01                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-07-09  8:01                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:06   ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:06     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:06     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:06     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 04/18] dma-fence: prime " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11  7:30   ` [Linaro-mm-sig] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-11  7:30     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-11  7:30     ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-11  7:30     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-11  8:34     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11  8:34       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11  8:34       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11  8:34       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 14:15       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-11 14:15         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-11 14:15         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-11 23:35         ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-11 23:35           ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-11 23:35           ` [Intel-gfx] " Felix Kuehling
2020-06-11 23:35           ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-12  5:11           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  5:11             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  5:11             ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  5:11             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 18:13           ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:13             ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:13             ` [Intel-gfx] " Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:13             ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-23  7:39           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23  7:39             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23  7:39             ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23  7:39             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 18:44             ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-23 18:44               ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-23 18:44               ` [Intel-gfx] " Felix Kuehling
2020-06-23 18:44               ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-23 19:02               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 19:02                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 19:02                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 19:02                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-16 12:07         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-16 12:07           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-16 12:07           ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-16 12:07           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-16 14:53           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-16 14:53             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-16 14:53             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-17  7:57             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17  7:57               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17  7:57               ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17  7:57               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17 15:29               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-17 15:29                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-17 15:29                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-18 14:42                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 14:42                   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 14:42                   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 14:42                   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17  6:48           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17  6:48             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17  6:48             ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17  6:48             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17 15:28             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-17 15:28               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-17 15:28               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-18 15:00               ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 15:00                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 15:00                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 15:00                 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 17:23                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-18 17:23                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-18 17:23                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19  7:22                   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  7:22                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  7:22                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19  7:22                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 11:39                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 11:39                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 11:39                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 15:06                       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 15:06                         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 15:06                         ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 15:06                         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 15:15                         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 15:15                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 15:15                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 16:19                           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 16:19                             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 16:19                             ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 16:19                             ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 17:23                             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 17:23                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 17:23                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 18:09                               ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:09                                 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:09                                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:09                                 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:18                                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 18:18                                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 18:18                                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:48                                   ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:48                                     ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:48                                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:48                                     ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:55                                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:55                                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:55                                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 20:03                                       ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 20:03                                         ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 20:03                                         ` [Intel-gfx] " Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 20:03                                         ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 20:31                                       ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:31                                         ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:31                                         ` [Intel-gfx] " Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:31                                         ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-22 11:46                                         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-22 11:46                                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-22 11:46                                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-22 20:15                                           ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-22 20:15                                             ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-22 20:15                                             ` [Intel-gfx] " Jerome Glisse
2020-06-22 20:15                                             ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-23  0:02                                             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-23  0:02                                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-23  0:02                                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 20:10                                   ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:10                                     ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:10                                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:10                                     ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:43                                     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 20:43                                       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 20:43                                       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 20:43                                       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 20:59                                       ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:59                                         ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:59                                         ` [Intel-gfx] " Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:59                                         ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-23  0:05                                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-23  0:05                                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-23  0:05                                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:11                                 ` Alex Deucher
2020-06-19 19:11                                   ` Alex Deucher
2020-06-19 19:11                                   ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Deucher
2020-06-19 19:11                                   ` Alex Deucher
2020-06-19 19:30                                   ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:30                                     ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:30                                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:30                                     ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:40                                     ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 19:40                                       ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 19:40                                       ` [Intel-gfx] " Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 19:40                                       ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 19:51                                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:51                                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:51                                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-12  7:01   ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:01     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:01     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12  7:01     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 05/18] drm/vkms: Annotate vblank timer Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 06/18] drm/vblank: Annotate with dma-fence signalling section Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 07/18] drm/atomic-helper: Add dma-fence annotations Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 08/18] drm/amdgpu: add dma-fence annotations to atomic commit path Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 10:51   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 10:51     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 10:51     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 10:51     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 09/18] drm/scheduler: use dma-fence annotations in main thread Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 10/18] drm/amdgpu: use dma-fence annotations in cs_submit() Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 11/18] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 12/18] drm/amdgpu: DC also loves to allocate stuff where it shouldn't Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 13/18] drm/amdgpu/dc: Stop dma_resv_lock inversion in commit_tail Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05  8:30   ` Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer
2020-06-05  8:30     ` Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer
2020-06-05  8:30     ` [Intel-gfx] " Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer
2020-06-05  8:30     ` Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer
2020-06-05 12:41     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 12:41       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 12:41       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 12:41       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 14/18] drm/scheduler: use dma-fence annotations in tdr work Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 15/18] drm/amdgpu: use dma-fence annotations for gpu reset code Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 16/18] Revert "drm/amdgpu: add fbdev suspend/resume on gpu reset" Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 17/18] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12 ` [PATCH 18/18] drm/i915: Annotate dma_fence_work Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:12   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04  8:55 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2 Patchwork
2020-06-04  8:57 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2020-06-04  9:08 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2020-06-05 13:59 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2 (rev2) Patchwork
2020-06-05 14:01 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2020-06-05 14:15 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2020-06-10 20:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2 (rev3) Patchwork
2020-06-10 20:21 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2020-06-10 20:35 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2020-06-12  7:18 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2 (rev6) Patchwork
2020-06-12  7:19 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2020-06-12  7:32 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2020-06-22 10:11 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2 (rev7) 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=20200604081224.863494-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --to=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jgg@mellanox.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.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 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.