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 21:00:29 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
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>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable
Message-ID: <20190815000029.GC11200@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190814202027.18735-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190814202027.18735-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190814202027.18735-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:20:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a
> possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't
> catch it.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the
> might_sleep() callsites trigger, and it's a bit ugly in the code flow.
> But it gets the job done.
> 
> Inspired by an i915 patch series which did exactly that, because the
> rules haven't been entirely clear to us.

I thought lockdep already was able to detect:

 spin_lock()
 might_sleep();
 spin_unlock()

Am I mistaken? If yes, couldn't this patch just inject a dummy lockdep
spinlock?

Jason