[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46D9D517.6010201@goop.org>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:09:43 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, stable@...nel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix preemptible lazy mode bug
Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Do you agree it is better to be safe than sorry in this case? The
> kind of bugs introduced by getting this wrong are really hard to find,
> and I would rather err on the side of an extra increment and decrement
> of preempt_count that causing a regression.
I think this patch is the direction we should go. I this this would
work equally well for the other pv implementations; it would probably go
into the common lazy mode logic when we get around to doing it.
J
diff -r b3fcc228c531 arch/i386/xen/enlighten.c
--- a/arch/i386/xen/enlighten.c Mon Aug 20 14:20:15 2007 -0700
+++ b/arch/i386/xen/enlighten.c Mon Aug 27 13:40:24 2007 -0700
@@ -250,6 +250,9 @@ static void xen_halt(void)
static void xen_set_lazy_mode(enum paravirt_lazy_mode mode)
{
+ if (preemptible() && mode == PARAVIRT_LAZY_FLUSH)
+ return; /* nothing to flush with preempt on */
+
BUG_ON(preemptible());
switch (mode) {
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists