[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130228153846.GA9782@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:38:46 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, samu.kallio@...rdeencloud.com,
kraman@...hat.com, jwboyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Is: x86: mm: Fix vmalloc_fault oops during lazy MMU updates Was:
Re: [PATCH] mm/x86: Flush lazy MMU when DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is set
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:29:10AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index fb674fd..4f7d793 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -378,10 +378,12 @@ static noinline __kprobes int vmalloc_fault(unsigned long address)
> if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref))
> return -1;
>
> - if (pgd_none(*pgd))
> + if (pgd_none(*pgd)) {
> set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
> - else
> + arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode();
Do I understand it correctly that this would cost us a
"preempt_disable(); preempt_enable()" needlessly on baremetal when
running with CONFIG_PARAVIRT enabled?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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