[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110221143023.GF13092@random.random>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:30:23 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix pgd_lock deadlock
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:19:41AM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> So Xen needs all page tables protected when pinning/unpinning and
> extended page_table_lock to cover kernel range, which it does nowhere
> else AFAICS. But the places it extended are also taking the pgd_lock,
> so I wonder if Xen could just take the pgd_lock itself in these paths
> and we could revert page_table_lock back to cover user va only?
> Jeremy, could this work? Untested.
If this works for Xen, I definitely prefer this.
Still there's no point to insist on _irqsave if nothing takes the
pgd_lock from irq, so my patch probably should be applied anyway or
it's confusing and there's even a comment saying pgd_dtor is called
from irq, if it's not it should be corrected. But then it becomes a
cleanup notafix.
--
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