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:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:06:07 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] mm/hmm: allow to mirror vma of a file on a DAX
 backed filesystem
Message-ID: <20190312190606.GA15675@redhat.com>
References: <CAPcyv4hB4p6po1+-hJ4Podxoan35w+T6uZJzqbw=zvj5XdeNVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190131041641.GK5061@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4gb+r==riKFXkVZ7gGdnKe62yBmZ7xOa4uBBByhnK9Tzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190305141635.8134e310ba7187bc39532cd3@linux-foundation.org>
 <CAA9_cmd2Z62Z5CSXvne4rj3aPSpNhS0Gxt+kZytz0bVEuzvc=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190307094654.35391e0066396b204d133927@linux-foundation.org>
 <20190307185623.GD3835@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4gkxmmkB0nofVOvkmV7HcuBDb+1VLR9CSsp+m-QLX_mxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190312152551.GA3233@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4iYzTVpP+4iezH1BekawwPwJYiMvk2GZDzfzFLUnO+RgA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iYzTVpP+4iezH1BekawwPwJYiMvk2GZDzfzFLUnO+RgA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:06:12AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:26 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:13:53PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:56 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:46:54AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:20:10 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > My hesitation would be drastically reduced if there was a plan to
> > > > > > avoid dangling unconsumed symbols and functionality. Specifically one
> > > > > > or more of the following suggestions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL on all exports to avoid a growing liability
> > > > > > surface for out-of-tree consumers to come grumble at us when we
> > > > > > continue to refactor the kernel as we are wont to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > The existing patches use EXPORT_SYMBOL() so that's a sticking point.
> > > > > Jerome, what would happen is we made these EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()?
> > > >
> > > > So Dan argue that GPL export solve the problem of out of tree user and
> > > > my personnal experience is that it does not. The GPU sub-system has tons
> > > > of GPL drivers that are not upstream and we never felt that we were bound
> > > > to support them in anyway. We always were very clear that if you are not
> > > > upstream that you do not have any voice on changes we do.
> > > >
> > > > So my exeperience is that GPL does not help here. It is just about being
> > > > clear and ignoring anyone who does not have an upstream driver ie we have
> > > > free hands to update HMM in anyway as long as we keep supporting the
> > > > upstream user.
> > > >
> > > > That being said if the GPL aspect is that much important to some then
> > > > fine let switch all HMM symbol to GPL.
> > >
> > > I should add that I would not be opposed to moving symbols to
> > > non-GPL-only over time, but that should be based on our experience
> > > with the stability and utility of the implementation. For brand new
> > > symbols there's just no data to argue that we can / should keep the
> > > interface stable, or that the interface exposes something fragile that
> > > we'd rather not export at all. That experience gathering and thrash is
> > > best constrained to upstream GPL-only drivers that are signing up to
> > > participate in that maturation process.
> > >
> > > So I think it is important from a practical perspective and is a lower
> > > risk way to run this HMM experiment of "merge infrastructure way in
> > > advance of an upstream user".
> > >
> > > > > > * A commitment to consume newly exported symbols in the same merge
> > > > > > window, or the following merge window. When that goal is missed revert
> > > > > > the functionality until such time that it can be consumed, or
> > > > > > otherwise abandoned.
> > > > >
> > > > > It sounds like we can tick this box.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't be too strick either, when adding something in release N
> > > > the driver change in N+1 can miss N+1 because of bug or regression
> > > > and be push to N+2.
> > > >
> > > > I think a better stance here is that if we do not get any sign-off
> > > > on the feature from driver maintainer for which the feature is intended
> > > > then we just do not merge.
> > >
> > > Agree, no driver maintainer sign-off then no merge.
> > >
> > > > If after few release we still can not get
> > > > the driver to use it then we revert.
> > >
> > > As long as it is made clear to the driver maintainer that they have
> > > one cycle to consume it then we can have a conversation if it is too
> > > early to merge the infrastructure. If no one has time to consume the
> > > feature, why rush dead code into the kernel? Also, waiting 2 cycles
> > > means the infrastructure that was hard to review without a user is now
> > > even harder to review because any review momentum has been lost by the
> > > time the user show up, so we're better off keeping them close together
> > > in time.
> >
> > Miss-understanding here, in first post the infrastructure and the driver
> > bit get posted just like have been doing lately. So that you know that
> > you have working user with the feature and what is left is pushing the
> > driver bits throught the appropriate tree. So driver maintainer support
> > is about knowing that they want the feature and have some confidence
> > that it looks ready.
> >
> > It also means you can review the infrastructure along side user of it.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> > > > It just feels dumb to revert at N+1 just to get it back in N+2 as
> > > > the driver bit get fix.
> > >
> > > No, I think it just means the infrastructure went in too early if a
> > > driver can't consume it in a development cycle. Lets revisit if it
> > > becomes a problem in practice.
> >
> > Well that's just dumb to have hard guideline like that. Many things
> > can lead to missing deadline. For instance bug i am refering too might
> > have nothing to do with the feature, it can be something related to
> > integrating the feature an unforseen side effect. So i believe a better
> > guideline is that driver maintainer rejecting the feature rather than
> > just failure to meet one deadline.
> 
> The history of the Linux kernel disagrees with this statement. It's
> only HMM that has recently ignored precedent and pushed to land
> infrastructure in advance of consumers, a one cycle constraint is
> already generous in that light.
> 
> > > > > > * No new symbol exports and functionality while existing symbols go unconsumed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unsure about this one?
> > > >
> > > > With nouveau upstream now everything is use. ODP will use some of the
> > > > symbol too. PPC has patchset posted to use lot of HMM too. I have been
> > > > working with other vendor that have patchset being work on to use HMM
> > > > too.
> > > >
> > > > I have not done all those function just for the fun of it :) They do
> > > > have real use and user. It took a longtime to get nouveau because of
> > > > userspace we had a lot of catchup to do in mesa and llvm and we are
> > > > still very rough there.
> > >
> > > Sure, this one is less of a concern if we can stick to tighter
> > > timelines between infrastructure and driver consumer merge.
> >
> > Issue is that consumer timeline can be hard to know, sometimes
> > the consumer go over few revision (like ppc for instance) and
> > not because of the infrastructure but for other reasons. So
> > reverting the infrastructure just because user had its timeline
> > change is not productive. User missing one cycle means they would
> > get delayed for 2 cycles ie reupstreaming the infrastructure in
> > next cycle and repushing the user the cycle after. This sounds
> > like a total wastage of everyone times. While keeping the infra-
> > structure would allow the timeline to slip by just one cycle.
> >
> > Spirit of the rule is better than blind application of rule.
> 
> Again, I fail to see why HMM is suddenly unable to make forward
> progress when the infrastructure that came before it was merged with
> consumers in the same development cycle.
> 
> A gate to upstream merge is about the only lever a reviewer has to
> push for change, and these requests to uncouple the consumer only
> serve to weaken that review tool in my mind.

Well let just agree to disagree and leave it at that and stop
wasting each other time

J?r?me