[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101118144921.GB28350@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:49:21 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: only call smp_processor_id in non-preempt cases
* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:14:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There are some paths that walk the die_chain with preemption on.
> >
> > What are those codepaths? At minimum it's worth documenting them.
>
> Well the one that caused the bug was do_general_protection which walks the
> die_chain with DIE_GPF.
>
> I can document them, though it might be time consuming to audit them and hope they
> don't change.
Listing one example is enough.
> [...] I guess my bigger question is, is it expected that anyone who calls the
> die_chain to have preemption disabled? If not, then does it matter if we document
> it?
Yes, it might be a bug to call those handlers with preemption on (or even with irqs
on). But if the code is fine as-is then documenting a single example would be nice.
Thanks,
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