Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()

[Avi Kivity]

On 04/01/2010 06:32 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether this is a real well done April 1st joke or if there
> > is someone trying to secure the "bad taste patch of the month" price.
> >
> > Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
> > mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.
> >      
> Converting those locks to mutexes will also allow to cleanly handle
> XPMEM schedule-in-mmu-notifier-handler requirement the right way.
>    

It would also allow kvm not to take a spinlock over potentially long 
operations (iterating over rmaps) as it does now.

> For now getting rid of the warning is enough though. Changing the
> locking would be possible but it'd slowdown the whole kernel all the
> time even if nobody would ever load the kvm or gru kernel modules.
>
> Let's be practical, this isn't even a syscall, this is only called by
> device driver ioctl and it's about losing 1msec or so in latency, to
> keep the whole kernel as fast as if mmu notifier didn't exist. I don't
> think we should have 1 single wide lock to take in
> mmu_notifier_register and then slowdown the kernel when nobody uses
> mmu notifier at all. Losing 1msec when a VM starts isn't a big deal
> really. If this wasn't the case it wouldn't have been merged in the
> first place I think. Besides with -rt these locks aren't going to hurt
> latency AFIK.
>    

Well, with my patch applied they sure will.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/