[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141103225721.GA12117@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 23:57:21 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Sebastian Lackner <sebastian@...-team.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>,
Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] sched/x86_64: Don't save flags on context switch
Argh, sorry for confusion...
On 11/03, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On 11/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> > Btw, why retint_kernel() checks "interrupts on" ? It seems to me that
> > that "interrupts off" is not possible, no? And this will be more clear
> > when we remove the "exit_intr" label.
>
> We might get there from #MC or from any of a number of synchronous
> errors (#GP from xyz_safe, #PF from some atomic uaccess thing or a
> vmap fault, etc), and all of those have interrupts off.
Yes, yes, exactly.
I actually tried to say that irqs should be always disabled (afaics!).
IOW "interrupts on" should not be possible, not "interrupts off".
Oleg.
--
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