From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F266B2FD5 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id v11-v6so7169887wrn.19 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 06:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 105-v6sor2802641wrb.51.2018.08.24.06.10.11 for (Google Transport Security); Fri, 24 Aug 2018 06:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: christian.koenig@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers References: <20180716115058.5559-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <8cbfb09f-0c5a-8d43-1f5e-f3ff7612e289@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180824113248.GH29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180824115226.GK29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180824120339.GL29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180824123341.GN29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180824130132.GP29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= Message-ID: <23d071d2-82e4-9b78-1000-be44db5f6523@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:10:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180824130132.GP29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Tetsuo Handa , Joonas Lahtinen , Sudeep Dutt , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrea Arcangeli , "David (ChunMing) Zhou" , Dimitri Sivanich , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie , Doug Ledford , David Rientjes , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Jani Nikula , Leon Romanovsky , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , Rodrigo Vivi , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , Mike Marciniszyn , Dennis Dalessandro , LKML , Ashutosh Dixit , Alex Deucher , Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Morton , Felix Kuehling Am 24.08.2018 um 15:01 schrieb Michal Hocko: > On Fri 24-08-18 14:52:26, Christian KA?nig wrote: >> Am 24.08.2018 um 14:33 schrieb Michal Hocko: > [...] >>> Thiking about it some more, I can imagine that a notifier callback which >>> performs an allocation might trigger a memory reclaim and that in turn >>> might trigger a notifier to be invoked and recurse. But notifier >>> shouldn't really allocate memory. They are called from deep MM code >>> paths and this would be extremely deadlock prone. Maybe Jerome can come >>> up some more realistic scenario. If not then I would propose to simplify >>> the locking here. We have lockdep to catch self deadlocks and it is >>> always better to handle a specific issue rather than having a code >>> without a clear indication how it can recurse. >> Well I agree that we should probably fix that, but I have some concerns to >> remove the existing workaround. >> >> See we added that to get rid of a real problem in a customer environment and >> I don't want to that to show up again. > It would really help to know more about that case and fix it properly > rather than workaround it like this. Anyway, let me think how to handle > the non-blocking notifier invocation then. I was not able to come up > with anything remotely sane yet. With avoiding allocating memory in the write lock path I don't see an issue any more with that. All what the write lock path does now is adding items to a linked lists, arrays etc.... So there is no more blocking involved here and the read lock side should be able to grab the lock immediately. Christian.