[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXi7vdNAk4RziNDtqX4asPqXxi1VsLzL7pP0zivkjTH4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:04:00 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in
schedule and __might_sleep
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>>
>> The exception handlers which use the IST stacks don't necessarily
>> set irq count. Maybe they should.
>
> Hmm. I think they should. Since they clearly must not schedule, as
> they use a percpu stack.
>
> Which exceptions use IST?
>
> [ grep grep ]
>
> Looks like stack, doublefault, nmi, debug and mce. And yes, I really
> think they should all raise the irq count if they don't already.
> Rather than add random arch-specific "let's check that we're on the
> right stack" code to the might-sleep stuff, just use the one we have.
>
Does that include nmi? I'm a bit afraid of touching that code.
It's certainly easy enough to bump irq_count in the paranoid entries.
--Andy
> Linus
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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