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 13:33:32 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        "David (ChunMing) Zhou" <David1.Zhou@amd.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
        Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@intel.com>,
        Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers
Message-ID: <20180824173332.GD4244@redhat.com>
References: <20180716115058.5559-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <8cbfb09f-0c5a-8d43-1f5e-f3ff7612e289@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20180824113629.GI29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <103b1b33-1a1d-27a1-dcf8-5c8ad60056a6@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20180824133207.GR29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <72844762-7398-c770-1702-f945573f4059@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20180824151239.GC4244@redhat.com>
 <20180824164003.GW29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20180824164003.GW29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:40:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 24-08-18 11:12:40, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> [...]
> > I am fine with Michal patch, i already said so couple month ago first time
> > this discussion did pop up, Michal you can add:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: J?r?me Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> 
> So I guess the below is the patch you were talking about?
> 
> From f7ac75277d526dccd011f343818dc6af627af2af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:32:24 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, mmu_notifier: be explicit about range invalition
>  non-blocking mode
> 
> If invalidate_range_start is called for !blocking mode then all
> callbacks have to guarantee they will no block/sleep. The same obviously
> applies to invalidate_range_end because this operation pairs with the
> former and they are called from the same context. Make sure this is
> appropriately documented.

In my branch i already updated HMM to be like other existing user
ie all blocking operation in the start callback. But yes it would
be wise to added such comments.


> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> index 133ba78820ee..698e371aafe3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> @@ -153,7 +153,9 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops {
>  	 *
>  	 * If blockable argument is set to false then the callback cannot
>  	 * sleep and has to return with -EAGAIN. 0 should be returned
> -	 * otherwise.
> +	 * otherwise. Please note that if invalidate_range_start approves
> +	 * a non-blocking behavior then the same applies to
> +	 * invalidate_range_end.
>  	 *
>  	 */
>  	int (*invalidate_range_start)(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> -- 
> 2.18.0
> 
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs