[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-05-20 Thread Daniel Vetter
In some special cases we must not block, but there's not a spinlock, preempt-off, irqs-off or similar critical section already that arms the might_sleep() debug checks. Add a non_block_start/end() pair to annotate these. This will be used in the oom paths of mmu-notifiers, where blocking is not

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:30:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:20:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > OK, no real objections to the thing. Just so long we're all on the same > > > page as to what it does and doesn't do ;-) > > > > I am not really sure whether

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 10-12-18 15:47:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:13:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I do not see any scheduler guys Cced and it would be really great to get > > > their opinion here. > > > > > > On

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:20:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > OK, no real objections to the thing. Just so long we're all on the same > > page as to what it does and doesn't do ;-) > > I am not really sure whether there are other potential users besides > this one and whether the check as

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-10 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 10-12-18 16:22:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 10-12-18 15:47:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:13:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I do not see any scheduler guys Cced and it would be

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-10 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 10-12-18 15:47:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:13:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > I do not see any scheduler guys Cced and it would be really great to get > > their opinion here. > > > > On Mon 10-12-18 11:36:39, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > In some special cases

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:13:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > I do not see any scheduler guys Cced and it would be really great to get > their opinion here. > > On Mon 10-12-18 11:36:39, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > In some special cases we must not block, but there's not a > > spinlock,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-10 Thread Michal Hocko
I do not see any scheduler guys Cced and it would be really great to get their opinion here. On Mon 10-12-18 11:36:39, Daniel Vetter wrote: > In some special cases we must not block, but there's not a > spinlock, preempt-off, irqs-off or similar critical section already > that arms the

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/4] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2018-12-10 Thread Daniel Vetter
In some special cases we must not block, but there's not a spinlock, preempt-off, irqs-off or similar critical section already that arms the might_sleep() debug checks. Add a non_block_start/end() pair to annotate these. This will be used in the oom paths of mmu-notifiers, where blocking is not