[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806221118250.2402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:22:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] x86/split_lock: Enable #AC exception for split
locked accesses
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> The control knobs allow sysadmin to handle #AC for split lock in different
> scenarios and usages.
>
> The control knob for kernel is to choose re-executing the faulting
> instruction (default) or kernel panic. Kernel panic may be useful in hard
> real time which has less tolerant to bad performance.
That's nonsense, really.
1) The re-executing mechanism is broken and totally useless
2) Panicing a real-time system just due to a single #AC is total
overkill. Real-Time systems care very much about proper safe state
transitioning. Panic is surely a safe state, but so is power off. But
neither of them qualifies as proper state transitioning.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists