From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write()
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:20:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2ehzcdkf2.fsf@firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110919212040.745370781@goodmis.org> (Steven Rostedt's message of "Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:20:40 -0400")
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:
> I just found out that the this_cpu_*() functions do not perform the
> test to see if the usage is in atomic or not. Thus, the blind
> conversion of the per_cpu(*, smp_processor_id()) and the get_cpu_var()
> code to this_cpu_*() introduce the regression to detect the hard
> to find case where a per cpu variable is used in preempt code that
> migrates and causes bugs.
Didn't preempt-rt recently get changed to not migrate in kernel-preempt
regions. How about just fixing the normal preemption to not do this
either.
Then all these complications wouldn't be necessary and a whole lot
of code related to this could be removed too, and you would still
have less bugs.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-20 2:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-19 21:20 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] x86: Remove const_udelay() caring about which cpu var it uses Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 23:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mm: Switch mod_state() to __this_cpu_read() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 22:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 23:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 22:19 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-20 13:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 14:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:51 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 16:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 17:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] memcg: Disable preemption in memcg_check_events() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:20 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-20 14:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-20 14:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-24 0:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] printk: Have wake_up_klogd() use __this_cpu_write() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-19 23:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 14:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-19 21:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] percpu: Add preempt checks back into this_cpu_read/write() Steven Rostedt
2011-09-19 21:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write() Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 3:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 12:44 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-20 13:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 14:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 14:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 17:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-20 17:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 17:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 18:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 18:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 18:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 18:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 22:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-20 22:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-09-21 1:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-09-20 16:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 16:10 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-20 18:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-21 15:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-21 15:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-21 15:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-21 16:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-21 16:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 2:20 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2011-09-20 3:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 3:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 8:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-20 12:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-09-20 15:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-09-20 15:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-20 16:05 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m2ehzcdkf2.fsf@firstfloor.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.