[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090615211605.GC27100@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:16:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
vegard.nossum@...il.com, efault@....de, jeremy@...p.org,
npiggin@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Fix call-chain
support to use NMI-safe methods
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> Just for the sake of making NMI handlers less tricky, supporting
> page faults caused by faulting kernel instructions (rather than
> only supporting explicit faulting from get_user_pages_inatomic)
> would be rather nice design-wise if it only costs 2-3 cycles.
>
> And I would not want to touch the page fault handler itself to
> write the saved cr2 value before the handler exits, because this
> would add a branch on a very hot path.
_That_ path is not hot at all - it's the 'we are in atomic section
and faulted' rare path (laced with an exception table search - which
is extremely slow compared to other bits of the pagefault path).
But ... it's not an issue: a check can be made in the NMI code too,
as we always know about pagefaults there, by virtue of getting
-EFAULT back from the attempted-user-copy.
Ingo
--
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