[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1368438380.2618.52.camel@ThinkPad-T5421>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:46:20 +0800
From: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org,
michael@...erman.id.au
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/5] powerpc: Exception hooks for context
tracking subsystem
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 19:06 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:44 +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > Yes, the above and hash_page() are two C functions for a same exception.
> > And the exception hooks enable RCU usage in those C codes. But for asm
> > codes, I think we could assume that there would be no RCU usage there,
> > so we don't need wrap them in the hooks.
>
> hash_page() won't start a new RCU, at least not in its current incarnation,
> the only thing I can see it ever doing would be to take some RCU read locks one
> day (it doesn't today).
Seems I added the hooks because of the trace point of hcall
entry/exit ...
Thanks, Zhong
>
> low_hash_fault() is a different beast. It will typically kill things, thus
> involving sending signals etc... RCU might well be involved.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
>
--
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