[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160518171059.GN3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:10:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 10/13] arch/x86: enable task isolation functionality
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:40PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 5/18/2016 12:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >That seems to miss a whole bunch of exceptions... what up?
>
> We only need to do an explicit call in the case where the exception does NOT
> result in a signal, since a signal is something that will be really obvious to
> the application in any case. So it's just stuff like handled page faults,
> handled bounds checks for x86, handled unaligned load/store for tilegx, etc.
Right; as per your earlier signal explanation. This seems somewhat
fragile to maintain though and really could use more clarification.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists