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, 23 Aug 2019 09:12:34 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 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>,
        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: <20190823121234.GB12968@ziepe.ca>
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>
 <CAKMK7uGw_7uD=wH3bcR9xXSxAcAuYTLOZt3ue4TEvst1D0KzLQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uGw_7uD=wH3bcR9xXSxAcAuYTLOZt3ue4TEvst1D0KzLQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34:01AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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.

I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer why a whole new scheme is
needed and a simple:

   if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP))
        preempt_disable()

isn't sufficient to catch the problematic cases during debugging??
IMHO the fact preempt is changed by the above when debugging is not
material here. I think that information should be included in the
commit message at least.

But if sched people are happy then lets go ahead. Can you send a v2
with the check encompassing the invalidate_range_end?

Jason