From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:23:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160113172303.GH25458@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569686BA.6050703@linaro.org>
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
> >>check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
> >>in upstream?
> >
> >Sorry, when you replied with:
> >
> >>I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
> >>to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
> >
> >I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> >anything more from you.
> >
> >What's the plan?
>
> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 -rt
> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is still
> the preferred approach.
>
> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other architectures
> for now, including arm64.
Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
else?
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:23:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160113172303.GH25458@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569686BA.6050703@linaro.org>
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
> >>check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
> >>in upstream?
> >
> >Sorry, when you replied with:
> >
> >>I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
> >>to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
> >
> >I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> >anything more from you.
> >
> >What's the plan?
>
> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 -rt
> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is still
> the preferred approach.
>
> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other architectures
> for now, including arm64.
Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
else?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-13 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-16 0:18 [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint Yang Shi
2015-12-16 0:18 ` Yang Shi
2015-12-16 11:13 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-16 11:13 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-16 20:45 ` Shi, Yang
2015-12-16 20:45 ` Shi, Yang
2015-12-21 10:48 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-21 10:48 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-21 16:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-12-21 16:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-12-21 17:00 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-21 17:00 ` Will Deacon
2015-12-21 17:27 ` Shi, Yang
2015-12-21 17:27 ` Shi, Yang
2016-01-12 19:59 ` Shi, Yang
2016-01-12 19:59 ` Shi, Yang
2016-01-13 10:26 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-13 10:26 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-13 10:26 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-13 17:17 ` Shi, Yang
2016-01-13 17:17 ` Shi, Yang
2016-01-13 17:23 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-01-13 17:23 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-13 18:10 ` Shi, Yang
2016-01-13 18:10 ` Shi, Yang
2016-02-05 21:25 ` Shi, Yang
2016-02-05 21:25 ` Shi, Yang
2016-02-11 13:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-11 13:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-11 17:29 ` Shi, Yang
2016-02-11 17:29 ` Shi, Yang
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=20160113172303.GH25458@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yang.shi@linaro.org \
/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.