[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw+axXZhez-5x8zWFw1=6OazMbj=va8nt9GZHsrxsKewQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:19:02 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> Actually, in_nmi() is now safe for vmalloc faults. In fact, it handles the
> clobbering of the cr2 register just fine.
That's not what I object to and find incorrect wrt NMI.
Compare the simple and correct 32-bit code to the complex and
incorrect 64-bit code.
In particular, look at how the 32-bit code relies *entirely* on hardware state.
Then look at where the 64-bit code does not.
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