lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()
On 04/01/2010 01:31 PM, 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.
>

True. But this is a band-aid we can apply now while the correct fix is
being worked out.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-01 13:13    [W:0.116 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site