Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751708AbbBSOsQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:48:16 -0500 Received: from e06smtp17.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.113]:47672 "EHLO e06smtp17.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751010AbbBSOsO (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:48:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:48:05 +0100 From: David Hildenbrand To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, hughd@google.com, hocko@suse.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() Message-ID: <20150219154805.2651257d@thinkpad-w530> In-Reply-To: <20150209144217.GT5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1418221414-60110-1-git-send-email-dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150112151911.4a51f09d@thinkpad-w530> <20150209144217.GT5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Organization: IBM Deutschland GmbH X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.24; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15021914-0029-0000-0000-0000036F2ECD Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1411 Lines: 39 > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 03:19:11PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > Thomas, Peter, > > > > anything that speaks against putting the pagefault_disable counter into > > thread_info (my series) instead of task_struct (rt tree)? > > > > IOW, what would be the right place for it? > > I think we put it in task_struct because lazy; ARM seems one of the few > popular archs where current still goes through thread_info. > > And that I think is the only reason to maybe use thread_info, cost of > access. The down-side of using thread_info is of course that it reduces > stack size. > > In any case; I think that if you want to go do this; please consider the > route -rt took and completely separate the two, don't leave the > preempt_count_{inc,dec} remnant in pagefault_{en,dis}able() at all. > > Thanks Peter, I am currently preparing/testing a series that does the requested separation (getting rid of preempt_count_{inc,dec} ...) while putting the pagefault disable count into task_info. Downside is that now that I have to touch all fault handlers, I have to go through all archs again. Think I'll have something to show in a couple of days. David -- 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/