[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx4-WzNQ0e-ZTcCig3b7U7xmt1WB1jzO3TLk9zHD006ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:23:16 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
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 3:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> Does that include nmi? I'm a bit afraid of touching that code.
NMI is kind of special, since it's really not supposed to touch
'current' or anything like that, and that's how we do preempt-count
(and that's where irq-count is) right now.
I would prefer to have preempt_count be a percpu variable rather than
a per-thread one, but there are historical reasons for that horror. Oh
well.
> It's certainly easy enough to bump irq_count in the paranoid entries.
It definitely shouldn't be done from the assembly code. Usually it's
"irq_enter/exit()" that does it, but for NMI you'd presumably just do
it explicitly from do_nmi() or similar. But NMI really is nastier than
other cases, see above.
(That said, I thought we did it anyway, but now that I look I can't
find it. So I was probably just smoking something)
Linus
--
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