[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140728185803.GA24663@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:58:03 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>, hpa@...or.com
Subject: TIF_NOHZ can escape nonhz mask? (Was: [PATCH v3 6/8] x86: Split
syscall_trace_enter into two phases)
Off-topic, but...
On 07/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> But we should always call user_exit() unconditionally?
Frederic, don't we need the patch below? In fact clear_() can be moved
under "if ()" too. and probably copy_process() should clear this flag...
Or. __context_tracking_task_switch() can simply do
if (context_tracking_cpu_is_enabled())
set_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_NOHZ);
else
clear_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_NOHZ);
and then we can forget about copy_process(). Or I am totally confused?
I am also wondering if we can extend user_return_notifier to handle
enter/exit and kill TIF_NOHZ.
Oleg.
--- x/kernel/context_tracking.c
+++ x/kernel/context_tracking.c
@@ -202,7 +202,8 @@ void __context_tracking_task_switch(stru
struct task_struct *next)
{
clear_tsk_thread_flag(prev, TIF_NOHZ);
- set_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_NOHZ);
+ if (context_tracking_cpu_is_enabled())
+ set_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_NOHZ);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE
--
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