[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121128135345.GG928@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:53:45 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-next list <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
sasha.levin@...cle.com, avi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Add rcu user eqs exception hooks for async page
fault
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So I still want to remove it. And later if it shows that we really needs
> > rcu somewhere in this code path, maybe we could use RCU_NONIDLE() to
> > protect it. ( The suspicious RCU usage reported in commit
> > c5e015d4949aa665 seems related to schedule(), which is not in the code
> > path if we are in cpu idle eqs )
>
> Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
> believe they are because exception_enter() exits the user mode, we
> should start to protect there right now instead of waiting for a
> potential future warning of illegal RCU use.
>
Async page not present is not much different from regular page fault
exception when it happens not on idle task (regular #PF cannot happen
on idle task), but code have a special handling for idle task. So why
do you think rcu_irq_*() is required here, but not in page fault
handler?
> >
> > I think we still need Gleb's patch about the idle check in
> > kvm_async_pf_task_wait(), and maybe another patch for the
> > exit_idle()/enter_idle() issue.
>
> Right.
>
Done.
--
Gleb.
--
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