[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV6=aWoAckieQkPJ4BCr9VzU=9080EmLfeL4ZWm+Hr55g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:54:40 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> I think you need ist_begin_non_atomic() before local_irq_enable() and
>> ist_end_non_atomic() after local_irq_disable(). Otherwise it should
>> be good.
>
> In your x86/paranoid branch you added:
>
> prev_state = ist_enter(regs);
> .... body of do_machine_check() here ...
> ist_exit(regs, prev_state);
>
> Does that override the previous advice? Or do I still need something before
> I call local_irq_enable() and after local_irq_disable()?
I think I was just being vague. It would be:
prev_state = ist_enter(regs);
.... beginning of do_machine_check() here ...
if (whatever condition) {
ist_begin_non_atomic();
local_irq_enable();
...
local_irq_disable();
ist_end_non_atomic();
ist_exit(regs, prev_state);
--Andy
>
> -Tony
--
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