[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140106113230.GA25261@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:32:30 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...tedt.homelinux.com>,
723180@...s.debian.org, Brian Silverman <bsilver16384@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86: Disable IST stacks for debug/int 3/stack
fault for PREEMPT_RT"
* Andi Kleen | 2014-01-04 19:18:07 [+0100]:
>On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 02:55:48PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> where do I start. Let me explain what is going on here. The code
>> sequence
>
>Yes the IST stacks are needed for correctness, even in more cases than
>the example below. You cannot just disable them, just because you don't
>like them.
Andi, you were the Author of that patch.
I plan to migrate from the IST stack to the kernel stack so I can enable
preemption. This is he case on 32bit. You mention more cases than this.
Could you please give me some examples so I can consider them?
>-Andi
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