[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150507082346.3e8e045e@thinkpad-w530>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 08:23:46 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, yang.shi@...driver.com,
bigeasy@...utronix.de, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, mst@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
David.Laight@...LAB.COM, hughd@...gle.com, hocko@...e.cz,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
linux@....linux.org.uk, airlied@...ux.ie, daniel.vetter@...el.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] decouple pagefault_disable() from
preempt_disable()
> > This series therefore does 2 things:
> >
> >
> > 1. Decouple pagefault_disable() from preempt_enable()
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 2. Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()
>
> All seems sensible to me. pagefault_disabled has to go into the
> task_struct (rather than being per-cpu) because
> pagefault_disabled_inc() doesn't disable preemption, yes?
>
Right, we can now get scheduled while in pagefault_disable() (if preemption
hasn't been disabled manually). So we have to store it per task/thread not per
cpu.
Actually even the preempt disable counter is only per-cpu for x86 and lives in
thread_info for all other archs (which is also not 100% clean but doesn't
matter at that point).
I had that pagefault disable counter in thread_info before, but that required
messing with asm-offsets of some arch (I had a proper version but this one
feels cleaner).
Thanks for having a look!
David
--
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