On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34:01AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:14 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 22:24:40 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > Iirc you've been involved at least somewhat in discussing this. -mm folks
> > > are a bit undecided whether these new non_block semantics are a good idea.
> > > Michal Hocko still is in support, but Andrew Morton and Jason Gunthorpe
> > > are less enthusiastic. Jason said he's ok with merging the hmm side of
> > > this if scheduler folks ack. If not, then I'll respin with the
> > > preempt_disable/enable instead like in v1.
> >
> > I became mollified once Michel explained the rationale. I think it's
> > OK. It's very specific to the oom reaper and hopefully won't be used
> > more widely(?).
>
> Yeah, no plans for that from me. And I hope the comment above them now
> explains why they exist, so people think twice before using it in
> random places.
I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer why a whole new scheme is
needed and a simple:
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP))
preempt_disable()
isn't sufficient to catch the problematic cases during debugging??
IMHO the fact preempt is changed by the above when debugging is not
material here. I think that information should be included in the
commit message at least.
But if sched people are happy then lets go ahead. Can you send a v2
with the check encompassing the invalidate_range_end?
Jason
