[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH 07/10] uml: avoid fixing faults while atomic
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 21:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" <> wrote:
> > From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <>

> The in_atomic() test in x86's do_page_fault() is in fact a message passed
> into it from filemap.c's kmap_atomic().
Ok, this can be ok, but:
> It has accidental side-effects,
> such as making copy_to_user() fail if inside spinlocks when
Sorry, but should it ever succeed inside spinlocks? I mean, should it ever
call down() inside spinlocks? (We never do down_trylock, and ever if we did
the x86 trick, that wouldn't make the whole thing safe at all - they still
take the spinlock and potentially sleep. And it's legal only if no spinlock
is held).

Even if spinlocks don't always trigger in_atomic() - which means that we'd
need to have a better fix for this.

(Btw, I took the above reasoning from something said, as an aside, on
kernel page, about the FUTEX deadlock on mm->mmap_sem of ~ 2.6.8 - yes, it
wasn't the full truth, but not totally dumb).

> So I think this change is only needed if UML implements kmap_atomic, as in
> arch/i386/mm/highmem.c, which it surely does not do?
NACK, see above.

Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894)

Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-21 22:26    [W:0.058 / U:9.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site