[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc4cf42d-ea06-f405-b3ff-0579cf67e4ec@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:03:45 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
aarcange@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
christian@...uner.io, davem@...emloft.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
elena.reshetova@...el.com, guro@...com, hch@...radead.org,
james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, jglisse@...hat.com,
keescook@...omium.org, ldv@...linux.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
luto@...capital.net, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
namit@...are.com, peterz@...radead.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop
On 2019/7/30 下午3:44, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> }
>> Looks good but I'd like to think of a strategy/existing lock that let us
>> block properly as opposed to spinning, that would be more friendly to
>> e.g. the realtime patch.
>
>
> Does it make sense to disable preemption in the critical section? Then
> we don't need to block and we have a deterministic time spent on
> memory accssors?
Ok, touching preempt counter seems a little bit expensive in the fast
path. Will try for blocking.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists