[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

[Michal Hocko]

On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, 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.

Yeah, it is quite ugly. Especially because it makes DEBUG config
bahavior much different. So is this really worth it? Has this already
discovered any existing bug?

> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko at suse.com>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes at google.com>
> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse at redhat.com>
> Cc: linux-mm at kvack.org
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> ---
>  mm/mmu_notifier.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 59e102589a25..4d282cfb296e 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -185,7 +185,13 @@ int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mm_struct *mm,
>  	id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>  	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist) {
>  		if (mn->ops->invalidate_range_start) {
> -			int _ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, mm, start, end, blockable);
> +			int _ret;
> +
> +			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) && !blockable)
> +				preempt_disable();
> +			_ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, mm, start, end, blockable);
> +			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) && !blockable)
> +				preempt_enable();
>  			if (_ret) {
>  				pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in %sblockable context.\n",
>  						mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret,
> -- 
> 2.19.1
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs