[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <501C183E.5000303@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:28:14 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ptrace: fix set_task_blockstep()->update_debugctlmsr()
logic
On 08/03/2012 07:38 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>>> + local_irq_enable();
>>
>> wouldn't preempt_disable() be enough?
>
> preempt_disable() can't help if interrupt handler changes
> other bits in between?
So perf() uses this register as well. Since perf() uses the raw
primitives (raw_spin_lock()) shouldn't you do the same? If I recall
correctly (but it is Friday and late) local_irq_enable() wouldn't
disable irqs on RT and perf takes the raw lock so the irqs there should
be really disabled.
>
> Oleg.
Sebastian
--
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