[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sgsomg91.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 21:19:22 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com> writes:
> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures
> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a
> single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place.
> kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault()
> need not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can
> now contain upto an 'unsigned int' accommodating all possible platforms.
...
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> index 58f69fa..1bc3b18 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> @@ -30,28 +30,6 @@
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
> -static inline int notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr)
> -{
> - int ret = 0;
> -
> - if (!user_mode(regs)) {
> - /* kprobe_running() needs smp_processor_id() */
> - preempt_disable();
> - if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, fsr))
> - ret = 1;
> - preempt_enable();
> - }
> -
> - return ret;
> -}
> -#else
You've changed several of the architectures from something like above,
where it disables preemption around the call into the below:
> +int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed
> + * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
> + */
> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) {
> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
> + ret = 1;
> + }
> + return ret;
> +}
Which skips everything if we're preemptible. Is that an equivalent
change? If so can you please explain why in more detail.
Also why not have it return bool?
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists