Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:10:53 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/mmu_notifier: Mark up direct reclaim paths with
 MAYFAIL
Message-ID: <20200624121053.GD6578@ziepe.ca>
References: <20200624080248.3701-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200624080248.3701-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 09:02:47AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> When direct reclaim enters the shrinker and tries to reclaim pages, it
> has to opportunitically unmap them [try_to_unmap_one]. For direct
> reclaim, the calling context is unknown and may include attempts to
> unmap one page of a dma object while attempting to allocate more pages
> for that object. Pass the information along that we are inside an
> opportunistic unmap that can allow that page to remain referenced and
> mapped, and let the callback opt in to avoiding a recursive wait.

i915 should already not be holding locks shared with the notifiers
across allocations that can trigger reclaim. This is already required
to use notifiers correctly anyhow - why do we need something in the
notifiers?

I really don't like this patch, the purpose of notifiers is only to
*track changes* not to influence policy of the callers.

Jason