[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150507122913.GA17443@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 14:29:13 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, williams@...hat.com,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, fweisbec@...hat.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] context_tracking,x86: remove extraneous irq disable
& enable from context tracking on syscall entry
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > > We cannot take the lock_trace(task) from irq context, and we
> > > probably do not need to anyway, since we do not care about a
> > > precise stack trace for the task.
> >
> > So one worry with this and similar approaches of statistically
> > detecting user mode would be the fact that on the way out to
> > user-space we don't really destroy the previous call trace - we
> > just pop off the stack (non-destructively), restore RIPs and are
> > gone.
> >
> > We'll need that percpu flag I suspect.
>
> Note we have the context tracking state which tells where the
> current task is: user/system/guest.
Yes, but that overhead is what I'm suggesting we get rid of, I thought
Rik was trying to find a mechanism that would be independent of that?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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