[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111103044344.GC2335@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:13:44 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@...com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [RFC][PATCH X86_32 1/2]: Call do_notify_resume() with
interrupts enabled
> Ingo, Thomas, I think this is your call, but it seems valid,
>
> Linus
>
Hey Ingo, Thomas,
Can you please let me know if you have taken a look at this patch and if
you have any reservations?
I would also be happy to know your thoughts on the other patch in the
series which makes sure that notify_die is called irrespective of
kprobes.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On 10/25, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >>
> >> do_notify_resume() gets called with interrupts disabled on x86_32. This
> >> is different from the x86_64 behavior, where interrupts are enabled at
> >> the time.
> >
> > And note that do_notify_resume() paths assume that irqs are enabled.
> > key_replace_session_keyring/get_signal_to_deliver start with _lock_irq.
> >
> > IOW, I vote for this change even if I can't ack it (although it looks
> > "obviously correct" to me). In fact refrigerator() looks buggy without
> > this change. Yes, it enables irqs but only "by accident", via unlock_irq().
> > And we are going to remove this recalc_sigpending() from freezer.
> >
> >
> >> Queries on lkml on this issue hasn't yielded any clear answer. Lets make
> >> x86_32 behave the same as x86_64, unless there is a real reason to
> >> maintain status quo.
> >>
> >> Please refer https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/27/130 for more details
> >>
> >> A similar change was suggested in arm
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/25/231
> >>
> >> My 32-bit machine works fine (tm) with the patch below
> >>
--
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