On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:12 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:20:55AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:00 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:27 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:16:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > So if someone can explain to me how that works with lockdep I can of > > > > > > course implement it. But afaics that doesn't exist (I tried to explain > > > > > > that somewhere else already), and I'm no really looking forward to > > > > > > hacking also on lockdep for this little series. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, kind of looks like it is done by calling preempt_disable() > > > > > > > > Yup. That was v1, then came the suggestion that disabling preemption > > > > is maybe not the best thing (the oom reaper could still run for a long > > > > time comparatively, if it's cleaning out gigabytes of process memory > > > > or what not, hence this dedicated debug infrastructure). > > > > > > Oh, I'm coming in late, sorry > > > > > > Anyhow, I was thinking since we agreed this can trigger on some > > > CONFIG_DEBUG flag, something like > > > > > > /* This is a sleepable region, but use preempt_disable to get debugging > > > * for calls that are not allowed to block for OOM [.. insert > > > * Michal's explanation.. ] */ > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) && !mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range)) > > > preempt_disable(); > > > ops->invalidate_range_start(); > > > > I think we also discussed that, and some expressed concerns it would > > change behaviour/timing too much for testing. Since this does does > > disable preemption for real, not just for might_sleep. > > I don't follow, this is a debug kernel, it will have widly different > timing. > > Further the point of this debugging on atomic_sleep is to be as > timing-independent as possible since functions with rare sleeps should > be guarded by might_sleep() in their common paths. > > I guess I don't get the push to have some low overhead debugging for > this? Is there something special you are looking for? Don't ask me, I'm just trying to get _some_ debugging for this in. I don't care one bit how much overhead it has because in our CI our debug build has lockdep and everything and it crawls anyway. I started out with the preempt_disable/enable thing like you suggested, and a few rounds later we're here. We can go back to v1 on this one, but I'd prefer to not do the lap too often. Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like to get at least the others considered. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
