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 16:14:28 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
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>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Christian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me?= 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 3/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
Message-Id: <20190822161428.c9e4479207386d34745ea111@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190820202440.GH11147@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <20190820081902.24815-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
        <20190820081902.24815-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
        <20190820202440.GH11147@phenom.ffwll.local>
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 Tue, 20 Aug 2019 22:24:40 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> Iirc you've been involved at least somewhat in discussing this. -mm folks
> are a bit undecided whether these new non_block semantics are a good idea.
> Michal Hocko still is in support, but Andrew Morton and Jason Gunthorpe
> are less enthusiastic. Jason said he's ok with merging the hmm side of
> this if scheduler folks ack. If not, then I'll respin with the
> preempt_disable/enable instead like in v1.

I became mollified once Michel explained the rationale.  I think it's
OK.  It's very specific to the oom reaper and hopefully won't be used
more widely(?).