[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB4AACE.5080202@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:16:46 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()
On 04/01/2010 07:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> I'm sure you dropped Ingo and Thomas by accident.
>>
>> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:40 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> mmu_take_all_locks() takes a spinlock for each vma, which means we increase
>>> the preempt count by the number of vmas in an address space. Since the user
>>> controls the number of vmas, they can cause preempt_count to overflow.
>>>
>>> Fix by making mmu_take_all_locks() only disable preemption once by making
>>> the spinlocks preempt-neutral.
>>
>> Right, so while this will get rid of the warning it doesn't make the
>> code any nicer, its still a massive !preempt latency spot.
>
> I'm not sure whether this is a real well done April 1st joke or if there
> is someone trying to secure the "bad taste patch of the month" price.
>
> Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
> mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.
That would involve converting most of the locks in mm/
to mutexes, since these two locks get nested under
all kinds of other spinlocks...
--
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