[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161020064045.GA29032@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:40:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/core,x86: make struct thread_info arch
specific again
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> >
> > commit c65eacbe290b ("sched/core: Allow putting thread_info into
> > task_struct") made struct thread_info a generic struct with only a
> > single flags member if THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK_STRUCT is selected.
> >
> > This change however seems to be quite x86 centric, since at least the
> > generic preemption code (asm-generic/preempt.h) assumes that struct
> > thread_info also has a preempt_count member, which apparently was not
> > true for x86.
> >
> > We could add a bit more ifdefs to solve this problem too, but it seems
> > to be much simpler to make struct thread_info arch specific
> > again. This also makes the conversion to THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK_STRUCT a
> > bit easier for architectures that have a couple of arch specific stuff
> > in their thread_info definition.
> >
> > The arch specific stuff _could_ be moved to thread_struct. However
> > keeping them in thread_info makes it easier: accessing thread_info
> > members is simple, since it is at the beginning of the task_struct,
> > while the thread_struct is at the end. At least on s390 the offsets
> > needed to access members of the thread_struct (with task_struct as
> > base) are too large for various asm instructions. This is not a
> > problem when keeping these members within thread_info.
>
> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>
> Ingo, there's a (somewhat weak) argument for sending this via
> tip/urgent: it doesn't change generated code at all, and I think it
> will avoid a silly depedency or possible conflict for the next merge
> window, since both arm64 and s390 are going to need it.
Can certainly do it if this is the final version of the patch. Mark?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists