Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 04/01/2010 02:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>>> mmu_take_all_locks() takes a spinlock for each vma, which means we increase
>>> the preempt count by the number of vmas in an address space.  Since the user
>>> controls the number of vmas, they can cause preempt_count to overflow.
>>>
>>> Fix by making mmu_take_all_locks() only disable preemption once by making
>>> the spinlocks preempt-neutral.
>>>        
>> Right, so while this will get rid of the warning it doesn't make the
>> code any nicer, its still a massive !preempt latency spot.
>>      
> I'm not sure whether this is a real well done April 1st joke or if there
> is someone trying to secure the "bad taste patch of the month" price.
>    

I don't think a spin_lock_nested_while_preempt_disabled() is worthwhile 
for this.

> Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
> mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.
>    

If someone is willing to audit all code paths to make sure these locks 
are always taken in schedulable context I agree that's a better fix.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function