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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190820081902.24815-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190820081902.24815-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20190820202440.GH11147@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20190822161428.c9e4479207386d34745ea111@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190822161428.c9e4479207386d34745ea111@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:34:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uGw_7uD=wH3bcR9xXSxAcAuYTLOZt3ue4TEvst1D0KzLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
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>,
        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>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:14 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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(?).

Yeah, no plans for that from me. And I hope the comment above them now
explains why they exist, so people think twice before using it in
random places.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch