[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160504191755.GV19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:17:55 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmap_atomic and preemption
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:47:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Traditionally kmap_atomic() disables preemption; and the reason is that
> the returned pointer must stay valid. This had a side effect in that it
> also disabled pagefaults.
A lowmem page should never change its page_address(), so that much is
safe. I think the question is whether there is any driver code which
assumes that preemption is unconditionally disabled between a
kmap_atomic() has been called.
That wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption given the name of the
function, so I'd suggest caution with making kmap_atomic() have these
kinds of differing behaviours depending on whether we're asking to
kmap a high or lowmem page.
If we are going to allow this, I think it at least needs to be well
documented.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists