Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think you need ist_begin_non_atomic() before local_irq_enable() and
>> ist_end_non_atomic() after local_irq_disable().  Otherwise it should
>> be good.
>
> In your x86/paranoid branch you added:
>
>      prev_state = ist_enter(regs);
>           .... body of do_machine_check() here ...
>      ist_exit(regs, prev_state);
>
> Does that override the previous advice? Or do I still need something before
> I call local_irq_enable() and after local_irq_disable()?

I think I was just being vague.  It would be:

     prev_state = ist_enter(regs);
          .... beginning of do_machine_check() here ...

     if (whatever condition) {
        ist_begin_non_atomic();
        local_irq_enable();

        ...

        local_irq_disable();
        ist_end_non_atomic();
     ist_exit(regs, prev_state);

--Andy

>
> -Tony



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/