lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -rt] ARM TLB flush fix: don't forget to re-enable preemption
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:22 +0100, Russell King wrote:
    > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:41:36PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
    > > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 16:25 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
    > > > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 16:01 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
    > > > > Add a preempt_enable() to flush_tlb_kernel_page() since -rt4 patch
    > > > > adds a preempt_disable but no preempt_enable().
    > > > >
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@mvista.com>
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > ---
    > > > > include/asm-arm/tlbflush.h | 1 +
    > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
    > > > >
    > > > > Index: linux-2.6.21/include/asm-arm/tlbflush.h
    > > > > ===================================================================
    > > > > --- linux-2.6.21.orig/include/asm-arm/tlbflush.h
    > > > > +++ linux-2.6.21/include/asm-arm/tlbflush.h
    > > > > @@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ static inline void local_flush_tlb_kerne
    > > > > asm("mcr p15, 0, %0, c8, c6, 1" : : "r" (kaddr) : "cc");
    > > > > if (tlb_flag(TLB_V6_I_PAGE))
    > > > > asm("mcr p15, 0, %0, c8, c5, 1" : : "r" (kaddr) : "cc");
    > > >
    > > > Aren't these mcr operations atomic?
    > > >
    > >
    > > Individually, yes. But the point of the preempt_disable/enable is to
    > > make the whole sequence atomic.
    >
    > In which case shouldn't it be at the end of the function so it includes
    > the write buffer handling as well?
    >
    > However, I think I agree with Daniel on this one. I don't see the point
    > of the preempt_disable() here.

    Note that my patch simply adds an enable to match the disable added by
    the -rt patch. I'm not sure where the disable originally came from, but
    there are disable/enable pairs scattered throughout tlbflush.h in the
    -rt patch.

    If this one isn't necessary, then the others probably are not either.
    In most cases there are 2 mcr instructions inside the critical section.
    One for the dsb() and the other for the actual function.

    Russell, is there a reason any of these sections should be atomic?

    Kevin




    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-23 18:17    [W:0.024 / U:0.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site