[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzzrLY-0D+dK=EyKA+kZTiqzpEwFhJURbR76-7EuLhojA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:22:11 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with the NMI mess
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> I worry that we'll end up running the do_debug() handlers from effective
> NMI context.
>
> The NMI might have preempted locks which these handlers require etc..
If #DB takes any locks like that, then #DB is broken.
Pretty much by definition, a data breakpoint can happen on pretty much
absolutely any code. This is in no way NMI-specific as far as I can
tell.
Do we really take locks in the #DB handler?
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