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, 16 Aug 2019 14:26:25 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
Message-ID: <20190816122625.GA10499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20190815155950.GN9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815165631.GK21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190815174207.GR9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815182448.GP21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190815190525.GS9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815191810.GR21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190815193526.GT9477@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190815201323.GU21596@ziepe.ca>
 <20190816081029.GA27790@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190816121906.GC5398@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190816121906.GC5398@ziepe.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 16-08-19 09:19:06, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 15-08-19 17:13:23, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:35:26PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The last detail is I'm still unclear what a GFP flags a blockable
> > > > > invalidate_range_start() should use. Is GFP_KERNEL OK?
> > > > 
> > > > I hope I will not make this muddy again ;)
> > > > invalidate_range_start in the blockable mode can use/depend on any sleepable
> > > > allocation allowed in the context it is called from. 
> > > 
> > > 'in the context is is called from' is the magic phrase, as
> > > invalidate_range_start is called while holding several different mm
> > > related locks. I know at least write mmap_sem and i_mmap_rwsem
> > > (write?)
> > > 
> > > Can GFP_KERNEL be called while holding those locks?
> > 
> > i_mmap_rwsem would be problematic because it is taken during the
> > reclaim.
> 
> Okay.. So the fs_reclaim debugging does catch errors.

I do not think fs_reclaim is the udnerlying mechanism to catch this
deadlock. It is a simple AA deadlock. You take i_mmap_rwsem and then
go down the allocation path, direct reclaim and take the lock again.
Nothing really surprising. fs_reclaim is really to catch GFP_NOFS
context calling into a less restricted (e.g. GFP_KERNEL allocation
context).

> Do you have any
> reference for what a false positive looks like? 

I believe I have given some examples when introducing __GFP_NOLOCKDEP.
 
> I would like to inject it into the notifier path as this is very
> difficult for driver authors to discover and know about, but I'm
> worried about your false positive remark.
> 
> I think I understand we can use only GFP_ATOMIC in the notifiers, but
> we need a strategy to handle OOM to guarentee forward progress.

Your example is from the notifier registration IIUC. Can you
pre-allocate before taking locks? Could you point me to some examples
when the allocation is necessary in the range notifier callback?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs