[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 10/10] kernel: might_fault does not imply might_sleep
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:06:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 16:34 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 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?
> No it wont. A spinlock calls preempt_disable implicitly, and a
> preempt_enable() will not schedule unless preempt_count is zero, which
> it wont be under a spinlock.
> If it did, there would be lots of bugs all over the place because this
> is done throughout the kernel (a preempt_enable() under a spinlock).
> In other words, don't ever use preempt_enable_no_resched().
> -- Steve

OK I get it. So let me correct myself. The simple code
that does something like this under a spinlock:
> preempt_disable
> pagefault_disable
> error = copy_to_user
> pagefault_enable
> preempt_enable
is not doing anything wrong and should not get a warning,
as long as error is handled correctly later.

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-19 19:01    [W:0.055 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site