Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-03-27 Thread David Hildenbrand
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > e.g. futex_atomic_op_inuser(): easy to fix, add preempt_enable/disable > > respectively. > > > > e.g. futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(): not so easy / nice to fix. > > > > The "inatomic" variants rely on the caller to make sur

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-03-27 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > e.g. futex_atomic_op_inuser(): easy to fix, add preempt_enable/disable > respectively. > > e.g. futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(): not so easy / nice to fix. > > The "inatomic" variants rely on the caller to make sure that preempt

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-03-27 Thread David Hildenbrand
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:48:05PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > Downside is that now that I have to touch all fault handlers, I have to go > > through all archs again. > > You should be able to borrow from the -rt patches there. They have all > that. > Hi Peter, I hadn't much time to w

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-02-19 Thread David Hildenbrand
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:48:05PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > Downside is that now that I have to touch all fault handlers, I have to go > > through all archs again. > > You should be able to borrow from the -rt patches there. They have all > that. > Jup, that's what I partially did.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-02-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:48:05PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Downside is that now that I have to touch all fault handlers, I have to go > through all archs again. You should be able to borrow from the -rt patches there. They have all that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-02-19 Thread David Hildenbrand
> 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

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-02-09 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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_str

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-01-30 Thread Christian Borntraeger
Am 12.01.2015 um 15:19 schrieb David Hildenbrand: > 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? > > Would be good to know for me how to procee

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2015-01-12 Thread David Hildenbrand
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? Would be good to know for me how to proceed with this series. Thanks! David > v1 -> v2: > - moved pagefau

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2014-12-15 Thread David Hildenbrand
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:23:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > Did you look at the -rt patches where this comes from? > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/clrkwllms/rt-linux.git/commit/?h=v3.14.21-rt9&id=b389ced19ab649438196d132768fe6522d2f052b > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2014-12-15 Thread David Hildenbrand
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21:27PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:23:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > > Did you look at the -rt patches where this comes from? > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/clrkwllms/rt-linux.git/commit/?

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2014-12-15 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21:27PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:23:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > Did you look at the -rt patches where this comes from? > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/clrkwllms/rt-linux.git/commit/?h=v3.14.21-r

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2014-12-15 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:23:29PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: Did you look at the -rt patches where this comes from? https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/clrkwllms/rt-linux.git/commit/?h=v3.14.21-rt9&id=b389ced19ab649438196d132768fe6522d2f052b https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel

[PATCH v2 0/5] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault()

2014-12-10 Thread David Hildenbrand
v1 -> v2: - moved pagefault_count to the end of thread_info for all archs that would have required manually calculating asm-offsets - to keep changes minimal. - remove unlikely() from "mm, uaccess: trigger might_sleep() in" and keep changes minimal (in_atomic() -> pagefault_disabled()) I