Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:24:42 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     christian.koenig@amd.com
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@intel.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "David (ChunMing) Zhou" <David1.Zhou@amd.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers
Message-ID: <20180824132442.GQ29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180824113248.GH29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <b088e382-e90e-df63-a079-19b2ae2b985d@gmail.com>
 <20180824115226.GK29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <a27ad1a3-34bd-6b7d-fd09-7737ec3c888d@gmail.com>
 <20180824120339.GL29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <eb546bcb-9c5f-7d5d-43a7-bfde489f0e7f@amd.com>
 <20180824123341.GN29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <b11df415-baf8-0a41-3c16-60dfe8d32bd3@amd.com>
 <20180824130132.GP29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <23d071d2-82e4-9b78-1000-be44db5f6523@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <23d071d2-82e4-9b78-1000-be44db5f6523@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 24-08-18 15:10:08, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 24.08.2018 um 15:01 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > On Fri 24-08-18 14:52:26, Christian K?nig wrote:
> > > Am 24.08.2018 um 14:33 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > [...]
> > > > Thiking about it some more, I can imagine that a notifier callback which
> > > > performs an allocation might trigger a memory reclaim and that in turn
> > > > might trigger a notifier to be invoked and recurse. But notifier
> > > > shouldn't really allocate memory. They are called from deep MM code
> > > > paths and this would be extremely deadlock prone. Maybe Jerome can come
> > > > up some more realistic scenario. If not then I would propose to simplify
> > > > the locking here. We have lockdep to catch self deadlocks and it is
> > > > always better to handle a specific issue rather than having a code
> > > > without a clear indication how it can recurse.
> > > Well I agree that we should probably fix that, but I have some concerns to
> > > remove the existing workaround.
> > > 
> > > See we added that to get rid of a real problem in a customer environment and
> > > I don't want to that to show up again.
> > It would really help to know more about that case and fix it properly
> > rather than workaround it like this. Anyway, let me think how to handle
> > the non-blocking notifier invocation then. I was not able to come up
> > with anything remotely sane yet.
> 
> With avoiding allocating memory in the write lock path I don't see an issue
> any more with that.
> 
> All what the write lock path does now is adding items to a linked lists,
> arrays etc....

Can we change it to non-sleepable lock then?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs