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:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:50:55 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to
 fail
Message-ID: <20190619165055.GI9360@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190520213945.17046-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190521154411.GD3836@redhat.com>
 <20190618152215.GG12905@phenom.ffwll.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190618152215.GG12905@phenom.ffwll.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 05:22:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:44:11AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:39:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into
> > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier
> > > implementation might fail when it's not allowed to.
> > > 
> > > Inspired by some confusion we had discussing i915 mmu notifiers and
> > > whether we could use the newly-introduced return value to handle some
> > > corner cases. Until we realized that these are only for when a task
> > > has been killed by the oom reaper.
> > > 
> > > An alternative approach would be to split the callback into two
> > > versions, one with the int return value, and the other with void
> > > return value like in older kernels. But that's a lot more churn for
> > > fairly little gain I think.
> > > 
> > > Summary from the m-l discussion on why we want something at warning
> > > level: This allows automated tooling in CI to catch bugs without
> > > humans having to look at everything. If we just upgrade the existing
> > > pr_info to a pr_warn, then we'll have false positives. And as-is, no
> > > one will ever spot the problem since it's lost in the massive amounts
> > > of overall dmesg noise.
> > > 
> > > v2: Drop the full WARN_ON backtrace in favour of just a pr_warn for
> > > the problematic case (Michal Hocko).

I disagree with this v2 note, the WARN_ON/WARN will trigger checkers
like syzkaller to report a bug, while a random pr_warn probably will
not.

I do agree the backtrace is not useful here, but we don't have a
warn-no-backtrace version..

IMHO, kernel/driver bugs should always be reported by WARN &
friends. We never expect to see the print, so why do we care how big
it is?

Also note that WARN integrates an unlikely() into it so the codegen is
automatically a bit more optimal that the if & pr_warn combination.

Jason