[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <103b1b33-1a1d-27a1-dcf8-5c8ad60056a6@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 22:02:23 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"David (ChunMing) Zhou" <David1.Zhou@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@...el.com>,
Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@...el.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers
On 2018/08/24 20:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> That is, this API seems to be currently used by only out-of-tree users. Since
>> we can't check that nobody has memory allocation dependency, I think that
>> hmm_invalidate_range_start() should return -EAGAIN if blockable == false for now.
>
> The code expects that the invalidate_range_end doesn't block if
> invalidate_range_start hasn't blocked. That is the reason why the end
> callback doesn't have blockable parameter. If this doesn't hold then the
> whole scheme is just fragile because those two calls should pair.
>
That is
More worrisome part in that patch is that I don't know whether using
trylock if blockable == false at entry is really sufficient.
. Since those two calls should pair, I think that we need to determine whether
we need to return -EAGAIN at start call by evaluating both calls.
Like mn_invl_range_start() involves schedule_delayed_work() which could be
blocked on memory allocation under OOM situation, I worry that (currently
out-of-tree) users of this API are involving work / recursion.
And hmm_release() says that
/*
* Drop mirrors_sem so callback can wait on any pending
* work that might itself trigger mmu_notifier callback
* and thus would deadlock with us.
*/
and keeps "all operations protected by hmm->mirrors_sem held for write are
atomic". This suggests that "some operations protected by hmm->mirrors_sem held
for read will sleep (and in the worst case involves memory allocation
dependency)".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists