From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f72.google.com (mail-pg0-f72.google.com [74.125.83.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469906B0006 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f72.google.com with SMTP id j13-v6so6369712pgp.16 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 04:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x10-v6si15721083plv.1.2018.07.02.04.54.29 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Jul 2018 04:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:54:23 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers Message-ID: <20180702115423.GK19043@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180622150242.16558-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20180627074421.GF32348@dhcp22.suse.cz> <71f4184c-21ea-5af1-eeb6-bf7787614e2d@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <71f4184c-21ea-5af1-eeb6-bf7787614e2d@amd.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= Cc: LKML , "David (ChunMing) Zhou" , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Alex Deucher , David Airlie , Jani Nikula , Joonas Lahtinen , Rodrigo Vivi , Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , Mike Marciniszyn , Dennis Dalessandro , Sudeep Dutt , Ashutosh Dixit , Dimitri Sivanich , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , Andrea Arcangeli , kvm@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Felix Kuehling On Mon 02-07-18 11:14:58, Christian Konig wrote: > Am 27.06.2018 um 09:44 schrieb Michal Hocko: > > This is the v2 of RFC based on the feedback I've received so far. The > > code even compiles as a bonus ;) I haven't runtime tested it yet, mostly > > because I have no idea how. > > > > Any further feedback is highly appreciated of course. > > That sounds like it should work and at least the amdgpu changes now look > good to me on first glance. > > Can you split that up further in the usual way? E.g. adding the blockable > flag in one patch and fixing all implementations of the MMU notifier in > follow up patches. But such a code would be broken, no? Ignoring the blockable state will simply lead to lockups until the fixup parts get applied. Is the split up really worth it? I was thinking about that but had hard times to end up with something that would be bisectable. Well, except for returning -EBUSY until all notifiers are implemented. Which I found confusing. > This way I'm pretty sure Felix and I can give an rb on the amdgpu/amdkfd > changes. If you are worried to give r-b only for those then this can be done even for larger patches. Just make your Reviewd-by more specific R-b: name # For BLA BLA -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs