Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:23:35 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, yang.shi@windriver.com,
        bigeasy@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,
        tglx@linutronix.de, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, hughd@google.com,
        hocko@suse.cz, ralf@linux-mips.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        linux@arm.linux.org.uk, airlied@linux.ie, daniel.vetter@intel.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] uaccess: count pagefault_disable() levels in
 pagefault_disabled
Message-ID: <20150507132335.51016fe4@thinkpad-w530>
In-Reply-To: <20150507111231.GF23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1430934639-2131-1-git-send-email-dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1430934639-2131-2-git-send-email-dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20150507102254.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20150507125053.5d2e8f0a@thinkpad-w530>
	<20150507111231.GF23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Organization: IBM Deutschland GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1293
Lines: 35

> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:50:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Just to make sure we have a common understanding (as written in my cover
> > letter):
> > 
> > Your suggestion won't work with !CONFIG_PREEMPT (!CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT). If
> > there is no preempt counter, in_atomic() won't work. 
> 
> But there is, we _always_ have a preempt_count, and irq_enter() et al.
> _always_ increment the relevant bits.
> 
> The thread_info::preempt_count field it never under PREEMPT_COUNT
> include/asm-generic/preempt.h provides stuff regardless of
> PREEMPT_COUNT.
> 
> See how __irq_enter() -> preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET) ->
> __preempt_count_add() _always_ just works.
> 
> Its only things like preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() that get
> munged depending on PREEMPT_COUNT/PREEMPT.
> 

Sorry for the confusion. Sure, there is always the count.

My point is that preempt_disable() won't result in an in_atomic() == true
with !PREEMPT_COUNT, so I don't see any point in adding in to the pagefault
handlers. It is not reliable.


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/