[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130405025025.GB22465@drongo>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:50:25 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] powerpc: Exception hooks for context tracking
subsystem
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 06:00:17PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> This is the exception hooks for context tracking subsystem, including
> data access, program check, single step, instruction breakpoint, machine check,
> alignment, fp unavailable, altivec assist, unknown exception, whose handlers
> might use RCU.
>
> This patch corresponds to
> [PATCH] x86: Exception hooks for userspace RCU extended QS
> commit 6ba3c97a38803883c2eee489505796cb0a727122
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Is there a reason why you didn't put the exception_exit() call in
ret_from_except_lite in entry_64.S, and the exception_entry() call in
EXCEPTION_PROLOG_COMMON? That would seem to catch all these cases in
a more centralized place.
Also, I notice that with the exception_exit calls where they are, we
can still deliver signals (thus possibly taking a page fault) or call
schedule() for preemption after the exception_exit() call. Is that
OK, or is it a potential problem?
Paul.
--
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