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

[Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>]

On 04/01/2010 07:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> I'm sure you dropped Ingo and Thomas by accident.
>>
>> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:40 +0300, Avi Kivity 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.
>
> 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.

That would involve converting most of the locks in mm/
to mutexes, since these two locks get nested under
all kinds of other spinlocks...