Re: [PATCH RFC] m68k: skip kernel premption if interrupts were disabled

[Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>]

Hi Finn,

yes, that would be the end goal, but it might be easier for Geert to 
merge the two patches (or a single one) on top of his preempt branch if 
they come in the usual git format.

Cheers,

     Michael

On 27/03/24 11:03, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
>> thanks - I'm pretty sure tried that early on but botched it by excessive
>> locking (i.e., keeping preemption disabled when calling
>> get_zeroed_page()!).
>>
>> So I don't think you do use too much locking here.
>>
>> I'm running stress tests for a while now, without any trouble so far.
>> Need to add a few other stressors back in, and repeat all that on a
>> slower ARAnyM instance but I'm quite confident you found the solution.
>>
>> Geert: with this data race fixed, it does appear my RFC patch is no
>> longer needed. Finn or I probably ought to prepare a new RFC patch to go
>> on top of your preemption patch. There is no commit ID to use in a
>> Fixes: tag for that one, correct?
>>
> I don't think we need a formal fix. I'd be content for Geert to simply
> roll your free_pointer_table() changes and my get_pointer_table() changes
> into his own commit. That way, bisection won't produce an unstable build.