[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YEpDJ/pPioG9ndYX@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 17:20:25 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: Ensure MMU notifier range_end() is paired
with range_start()
On Wed 10-03-21 20:28:07, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:31:17PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Invoke the MMU notifier's .invalidate_range_end() callbacks even if one
> > of the .invalidate_range_start() callbacks failed. If there are multiple
> > notifiers, the notifier that did not fail may have performed actions in
> > its ...start() that it expects to unwind via ...end(). Per the
> > mmu_notifier_ops documentation, ...start() and ...end() must be paired.
>
> No this is not OK, if invalidate_start returns EBUSY invalidate_end
> should *not* be called.
Yes, this is what I remember when introducing nonblock interface. So I
agree with Jason this patch is not correct. The interface is subtle but
I remember we couldn't come up with something more robust and still
memory with notifiers to be reapable.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists