Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 23/11/2018 13:12, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:46 PM Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 23-11-18 13:38:38, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: We need to make sure implementations

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:46 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 23-11-18 13:38:38, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 23-11-18 13:38:38, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > > > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:12:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > > catch it. > > > > I'm not sure whether

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > catch it. > > I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the > might_sleep() callsites trigger,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Christian König
Am 23.11.18 um 09:46 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:55:17PM +, Koenig, Christian wrote: Am 22.11.18 um 17:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter: We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't catch

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:55:17PM +, Koenig, Christian wrote: > Am 22.11.18 um 17:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > > catch it. > > > > I'm not sure whether

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-22 Thread Koenig, Christian
Am 22.11.18 um 17:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > catch it. > > I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the > might_sleep() callsites trigger, and

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

2018-11-22 Thread Daniel Vetter
We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't catch it. I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the might_sleep() callsites trigger, and it's a bit ugly in the code flow. But it gets the job