[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> I'm sure you dropped Ingo and Thomas by accident.
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:40 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > mmu_take_all_locks() takes a spinlock for each vma, which means we increase
> > the preempt count by the number of vmas in an address space. Since the user
> > controls the number of vmas, they can cause preempt_count to overflow.
> >
> > Fix by making mmu_take_all_locks() only disable preemption once by making
> > the spinlocks preempt-neutral.
> Right, so while this will get rid of the warning it doesn't make the
> code any nicer, its still a massive !preempt latency spot.

I'm not sure whether this is a real well done April 1st joke or if there
is someone trying to secure the "bad taste patch of the month" price.

Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-01 13:07    [W:0.082 / U:2.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site