[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100714195617.GC22373@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:56:17 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...tedt.homelinux.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86_64 page fault NMI-safe
> or similar. Wouldn't that be nice to have as a capability?
It means the NMI watchdog would get useless if these areas
become common.
Again I suspect all of this is not really needed anyways if
vmalloc_sync_all() works properly. That would solve the original
problem Mathieu was trying to solve for per_cpu data. The rule
would be just to call vmalloc_sync_all() properly when changing
per CPU data too.
In fact I'm pretty sure it worked originally. Perhaps it regressed?
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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