lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might_sleep
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 08:34:04AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 12:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > No, I was not assuming that. What I'm trying to say is that a caller
> > that does something like this under a spinlock:
> > preempt_disable
> > pagefault_disable
> > error = copy_to_user
> > pagefault_enable
> > preempt_enable_no_resched
> >
> > is not doing anything wrong and should not get a warning,
> > as long as error is handled correctly later.
> > Right?
> >
>
> What I see wrong with the above is the preempt_enable_no_resched(). The
> only place that should be ever used is right before a schedule(), as you
> don't want to schedule twice (once for the preempt_enable() and then
> again for the schedule itself).
>
> Remember, in -rt, a spin lock does not disable preemption.
>
> -- Steve

Right but we need to keep it working on upstream as well.
If I do preempt_enable under a spinlock upstream won't it
try to sleep under spinlock?


--
MST


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-19 15:41    [W:0.155 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site