[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190815000029.GC11200@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 21:00:29 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:20:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a
> possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't
> catch it.
>
> I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the
> might_sleep() callsites trigger, and it's a bit ugly in the code flow.
> But it gets the job done.
>
> Inspired by an i915 patch series which did exactly that, because the
> rules haven't been entirely clear to us.
I thought lockdep already was able to detect:
spin_lock()
might_sleep();
spin_unlock()
Am I mistaken? If yes, couldn't this patch just inject a dummy lockdep
spinlock?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists