From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
paulus@samba.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
mingo@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when atomic
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:52:08 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411272246110.3961@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141127161905.7c6220ee@thinkpad-w530>
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > OTOH, there is no reason why we need to disable preemption over that
> > page_fault_disabled() region. There are code pathes which really do
> > not require to disable preemption for that.
> >
> > We have that seperated in preempt-rt for obvious reasons and IIRC
> > Peter Zijlstra tried to distangle it in mainline some time ago. I
> > forgot why that never got merged.
> >
>
> Of course, we can completely separate that in our page fault code by doing
> pagefault_disabled() checks instead of in_atomic() checks (even in add on
> patches later).
>
> > We tie way too much stuff on the preemption count already, which is a
> > mightmare because we have no clear distinction of protection
> > scopes.
>
> Although it might not be optimal, but keeping a separate counter for
> pagefault_disable() as part of the preemption counter seems to be the only
> doable thing right now.
It needs to be seperate, if it should be useful. Otherwise we just
have a extra accounting in preempt_count() which does exactly the same
thing as we have now: disabling preemption.
Now you might say, that we could mask out that part when checking
preempt_count, but that wont work on x86 as x86 has the preempt
counter as a per cpu variable and not as a per thread one.
But if you want to distangle pagefault disable from preempt disable
then you must move it to the thread, because it is a property of the
thread. preempt count is very much a per cpu counter as you can only
go through schedule when it becomes 0.
Btw, I find the x86 representation way more clear, because it
documents that preempt count is a per cpu BKL and not a magic thread
property. And sadly that is how preempt count is used ...
> I am not sure if a completely separated counter is even possible,
> increasing the size of thread_info.
And adding a ulong to thread_info is going to create exactly which
problem?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-27 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-25 11:43 [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when atomic David Hildenbrand
2014-11-25 11:43 ` [RFC 1/2] powerpc/fsl-pci: atomic get_user when pagefault_disabled David Hildenbrand
2015-01-30 5:15 ` [RFC,1/2] " Scott Wood
2015-01-30 7:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-25 11:43 ` [RFC 2/2] mm, sched: trigger might_sleep() in might_fault() when atomic David Hildenbrand
2014-11-26 7:02 ` [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for " Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 10:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-26 15:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 15:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 15:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-26 15:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 16:02 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-26 16:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 16:30 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-26 16:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 16:07 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-26 16:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 16:51 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-26 17:04 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 17:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-27 7:09 ` Heiko Carstens
2014-11-27 7:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-27 8:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 12:04 ` Heiko Carstens
2014-11-27 12:08 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 15:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-27 15:19 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 15:37 ` David Laight
2014-11-27 15:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 16:27 ` David Laight
2014-11-27 16:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 21:52 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2014-11-28 7:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-26 15:30 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-26 15:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-26 16:02 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-11-26 15:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-27 17:10 ` [PATCH RFC " David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 17:10 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] preempt: track pagefault_disable() calls in the preempt counter David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 17:10 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] mm, sched: trigger might_sleep() in might_fault() when pagefaults are disabled David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 17:24 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-27 17:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-11-27 18:08 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-11-27 18:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=alpine.DEB.2.11.1411272246110.3961@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).