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:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:24:10 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <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 4/4] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable
Message-ID: <20190822142410.GB8339@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190820081902.24815-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190820081902.24815-5-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190820133418.GG29246@ziepe.ca>
 <20190820151810.GG11147@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20190821154151.GK11147@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20190821161635.GC8653@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uERsmgFqDVHMCWs=4s_3fHM0eRr7MV6A8Mdv7xVouyxJw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uERsmgFqDVHMCWs=4s_3fHM0eRr7MV6A8Mdv7xVouyxJw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:42:39AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> > RDMA has a mutex:
> >
> > ib_umem_notifier_invalidate_range_end
> >   rbt_ib_umem_for_each_in_range
> >    invalidate_range_start_trampoline
> >     ib_umem_notifier_end_account
> >       mutex_lock(&umem_odp->umem_mutex);
> >
> > I'm working to delete this path though!
> >
> > nonblocking or not follows the start, the same flag gets placed into
> > the mmu_notifier_range struct passed to end.
> 
> Ok, makes sense.
> 
> I guess that also means the might_sleep (I started on that) in
> invalidate_range_end also needs to be conditional? Or not bother with
> a might_sleep in invalidate_range_end since you're working on removing
> the last sleep in there?

I might suggest the same pattern as used for locked, the might_sleep
unconditionally on the start, and a 2nd might sleep after the IF in
__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end()

Observing that by audit all the callers already have the same locking
context for start/end

Jason