[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180621141751.GA11853@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:17:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: use raw_spin_lock_irq instead of
raw_spin_lock_irqsave
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The sleeping functions down, down_interruptible, down_killable and
> > > down_timeout can't be called with interrupts disabled, so we don't have to
> > > save and restore interrupt flag.
> > >
> > > This patch avoids the costly pushf and popf instructions on the semaphore
> > > path.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > kernel/locking/semaphore.c | 21 ++++++++-------------
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > I've applied this to the locking tree, I suspect we can do this on the condition
> > that it doesn't explode in early boot code (which has irqs disabled) and doesn't
> > generate early boot lockdep splats either.
>
> Hm, this blew up pretty quick on a pretty regular x86-64 PC white-box, during
> early bootup:
>
> PANIC: early exception 0x08 IP 246:10 error ffffffff811537b2 cr2 0xffff88000240cff8
>
> and I think it's due to your patch - verifying that now.
Yeah, went away after removing that patch. So I'm skipping this for now.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists