[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170810092238.doii2nwmhalinz5f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:22:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, npiggin@...il.com,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/14] lockdep: Detect and handle hist_lock ring
buffer overwrite
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:32:16AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:16:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hehe, _another_ scheme...
> >
> > Yes I think this works.. but I had just sort of understood the last one.
> >
> > How about I do this on top? That I think is a combination of what I
> > proposed last and your single invalidate thing. Combined they solve the
> > problem with the least amount of extra storage (a single int).
>
> I'm sorry for saying that.. I'm not sure if this works well.
OK, I'll sit on the patch a little while, if you could share your
concerns then maybe I can improve the comments ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists