[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix preemptible lazy mode bug
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 14:42 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> static inline void arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
>>> {
>>> - PVOP_VCALL1(set_lazy_mode, PARAVIRT_LAZY_FLUSH);
>>> + if (unlikely(__get_cpu_var(paravirt_lazy_mode) == PARAVIRT_LAZY_MMU))
>>> + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>> }
>> This changes the semantics a bit; previously "flush" would flush
>> anything pending but leave us in lazy mode. This just drops lazymode
>> altogether?
>> I guess if we assume that flushing is a rare event then its OK, but I
>> think the name's a bit misleading. How does it differ from plain
>> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode()?
> Whether it's likely or unlikely to be in lazy mode, basically. But
> you're right, this should be folded, since we don't want to "leave" lazy
> mode twice.

Hm, I think there's still a problem here. In the current code, you can
legitimately flush lazy mode with preemption enabled (ie, there's no
lazy mode currently active), but it's always a bug to enable/disable
lazy mode with preemption enabled. Certainly enabling lazy mode with
preemption enabled is always a bug, but you could make disable
preempt-safe (and the bug checking should be in the common code).

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: 2007-09-05 22:13    [W:0.082 / U:3.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site