[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVKJr9YFoU584didHR=18Fyj3xCevdT6Ro4fEEjzf8kfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:25:35 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in
schedule and __might_sleep
On Nov 20, 2014 2:28 AM, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:46:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > So we'd do, in do_machine_check:
> >
> > irq_enter();
> >
> > do atomic stuff;
> >
> > ist_stop_being_atomic(regs);
> > local_irq_enable();
> > ...
> > local_irq_disable();
> > ist_start_being_atomic_again();
>
> Well, why would I want to go atomic again? We just do the minimally
> needed atomic stuff, irq_exit() and then do the rest.
Because ist_exit will get confused otherwise, and you still need to
call something on the way out for context tracking.
Yes, I could rearrange it a bit. Will ponder.
--Andy
>
> >
> > irq_exit();
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
> --
--
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