From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:40040 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725783AbfFFCkX (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2019 22:40:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC V2] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() References: <1559630046-12940-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <87sgsomg91.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20190605112328.GB2025@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:10:28 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190605112328.GB2025@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox , Michael Ellerman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Mark Rutland , Christophe Leroy , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , Paul Mackerras , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Yoshinori Sato , "David S. Miller" , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen On 06/05/2019 04:53 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 09:19:22PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Anshuman Khandual writes: >>> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures >>> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a >>> single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. >>> kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault() >>> need not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can >>> now contain upto an 'unsigned int' accommodating all possible platforms. >> ... >> >> You've changed several of the architectures from something like above, >> where it disables preemption around the call into the below: >> >> >> Which skips everything if we're preemptible. Is that an equivalent >> change? If so can you please explain why in more detail. > > See the discussion in v1 of this patch, which you were cc'd on. > > I agree the description here completely fails to mention why the change. > It should mention commit a980c0ef9f6d8c. I will update the commit message to include an explanation for this new preempt behavior in the generic definition.