linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f19298770902041428m6a23846fud8cfba8bb3deab4@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 01:28:37 +0300
From:	Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:52, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 20:49 +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
>> And answering an earlier question, this happens only on i386 and only
>> with 4K stacks because x86_64 dosn't have a separate softirq stack,
>> so the preempt count diring the soft irq is at least IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET.
>
> Which suggests that an initial preempt_count offset of 1 should suffice
> to fix this issue and not confuse the softirq tracing, hmm?

Can't we just copy the preempt count when switching stacks?
--
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/