On Fri 23-11-18 09:49:34, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 04:53:34PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2018-11-22 16:51:04) > > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier > > > implementation might fail when it's not allowed to. > > > > Most callers could handle the failure correctly. It looks like the > > failure was not propagated for convenience. > > I have no idea whether the mm is semantically ok if pte shootdown doesn't > work for all sorts of strange reasons. From the commit that introduced the > error code it souded like this was very much only ok in the limited case > of an already killed process, in the oom killer path, where it's really > only about trying to free any kind of memory. And where the process is > gone already, so semantics of what exactly happens don't matter that much > anymore.
Yes this was indeed the case. There is still the exit path which would do the rest of the work so we are not leaving anything behind. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
