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, 14 Aug 2019 15:14:47 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Christian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Check if mmu notifier callbacks are allowed to
 fail
Message-Id: <20190814151447.e9ab74f4c7ed4297e39321d1@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190814202027.18735-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
References: <20190814202027.18735-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
        <20190814202027.18735-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 22:20:23 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> 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.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
>  				pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in %sblockable context.\n",
>  					mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret,
>  					!mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range) ? "non-" : "");
> +				WARN_ON(mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range) ||
> +					ret != -EAGAIN);
>  				ret = _ret;
>  			}
>  		}

A problem with WARN_ON(a || b) is that if it triggers, we don't know
whether it was because of a or because of b.  Or both.  So I'd suggest

	WARN_ON(a);
	WARN_ON(b);