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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox