From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91206B0006 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 04:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id f6-v6so2122910eds.6 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 01:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t6-v6si413084edb.291.2018.06.25.01.45.30 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 01:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:45:29 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers Message-ID: <20180625084529.GC28965@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180622150242.16558-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20180625075715.GA28965@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: LKML , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrea Arcangeli , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse On Mon 25-06-18 10:10:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 25/06/2018 09:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Sun 24-06-18 10:11:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 22/06/2018 17:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> @@ -7215,6 +7216,8 @@ void kvm_arch_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(struct kvm *kvm, > >>> apic_address = gfn_to_hva(kvm, APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE >> PAGE_SHIFT); > >>> if (start <= apic_address && apic_address < end) > >>> kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_APIC_PAGE_RELOAD); > >>> + > >>> + return 0; > >> > >> This is wrong, gfn_to_hva can sleep. > > > > Hmm, I have tried to crawl the call chain and haven't found any > > sleepable locks taken. Maybe I am just missing something. > > __kvm_memslots has a complex locking assert. I do not see we would take > > slots_lock anywhere from the notifier call path. IIUC that means that > > users_count has to be zero at that time. I have no idea how that is > > guaranteed. > > Nevermind, ENOCOFFEE. This is gfn_to_hva, not gfn_to_pfn. It only > needs SRCU. OK, so just the make sure I follow, the change above is correct? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs