From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:03:17 +0000 Subject: Re: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview Message-Id: <419EC205.5030604@yahoo.com.au> List-Id: References: <419D581F.2080302@yahoo.com.au> <419D5E09.20805@yahoo.com.au> <1100848068.25520.49.camel@gaston> <20041120020306.GA2714@holomorphy.com> <419EBBE0.4010303@yahoo.com.au> <20041120035510.GH2714@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20041120035510.GH2714@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Linus Torvalds , Christoph Lameter , akpm@osdl.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: > William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >>>Unprivileged triggers for full-tasklist scans are NMI oops material. > > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:37:04PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Hang on, let's come back to this... >>We already have unprivileged do-for-each-thread triggers in the proc >>code. It's in do_task_stat, even. Rss reporting would basically just >>involve one extra addition within that loop. >>So... hmm, I can't see a problem with it. > > > /proc/ triggering NMI oopses was a persistent problem even before that > code was merged. I've not bothered testing it as it at best aggravates it. > It isn't a problem. If it ever became a problem then we can just touch the nmi oopser in the loop. > And thread groups can share mm's. do_for_each_thread() won't suffice. > I think it will be just fine.