Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:25:16 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking
 in do_write_seqcount_begin_nested()
Message-ID: <ZMfETPzGfpPP7F79@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230623171232.892937-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20230623171232.892937-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <d9b7c170-ed0d-5d37-e099-20d233115943@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20230626081254.XmorFrhs@linutronix.de>
 <ZJmkPuqpW-wQAyNz@alley>
 <a1c559b7-335e-5401-d167-301c5b1cd312@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20230727151029.e_M9bi8N@linutronix.de>
 <b6ba16ce-4849-d32c-68fe-07a15aaf9d9c@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <649fa1a7-4efd-8cc7-92c7-ac7944adc283@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <649fa1a7-4efd-8cc7-92c7-ac7944adc283@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat 29-07-23 20:05:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/07/29 14:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2023/07/28 0:10, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> On 2023-06-28 21:14:16 [+0900], Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>>> Anyway, please do not do this change only because of printk().
> >>>> IMHO, the current ordering is more logical and the printk() problem
> >>>> should be solved another way.
> >>>
> >>> Then, since [PATCH 1/2] cannot be applied, [PATCH 2/2] is automatically
> >>> rejected.
> >>
> >> My understanding is that this patch gets applied and your objection will
> >> be noted.
> > 
> > My preference is that zonelist_update_seq is not checked by !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
> > allocations, which is a low-hanging fruit towards GFP_LOCKLESS mentioned at
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZG3+l4qcCWTPtSMD@dhcp22.suse.cz and
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZJWWpGZMJIADQvRS@dhcp22.suse.cz .
> > 
> > Maybe we can defer checking zonelist_update_seq till retry check like below,
> > for this is really an infrequent event.
> > 
> 
> An updated version with comments added.

Seriously, don't you see how hairy all this is? And for what? Nitpicking
something that doesn't seem to be a real problem in the first place?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs