[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171120184927.GK2482@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:49:27 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 for 4.15 08/24] Provide cpu_opv system call
> Having cpu_opv do a 4k memcpy allow it to handle scenarios where
> rseq fails to progress.
If anybody ever gets that right. It will be really hard to just
test such a path.
It also seems fairly theoretical to me. Do you even have a
test case where the normal path stops making forward progress?
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists