Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-17 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:36:52PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some > > > simple reordering conflicts t

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-16 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > 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 h

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-16 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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 oth

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-16 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:12 PM Jason Gunthorpe 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 wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:27 PM Jason

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-16 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:20:55AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:00 AM Jason Gunthorpe 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 wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:16:43PM +0200

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-16 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 15-08-19 22:16:43, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:35 PM Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > The last detail is I'm still unclear what a GFP flags a blockable > > > invalidate_range_start() should use. Is GFP_KERNEL OK? > > > > I hope I will not make this muddy again ;) > > inv

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-15 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:00 AM Jason Gunthorpe 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 wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:16:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > So if someone can explain to me how that

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-15 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:27 PM Jason Gunthorpe 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 afai

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-15 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:27 PM Jason Gunthorpe 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 alrea

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-15 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
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 lock

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

2019-08-15 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:35 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 15-08-19 16:18:10, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:05:25PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > This is what you claim and I am saying that fs_reclaim is about a > > > restricted reclaim context and it is an ugly