Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] x86: Add NMI types for kmap_atomic

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 20:42 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 20:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > but ... look at the APIs i propose above. We dont need _any_ 
> > > > 'types'.
> > > > 
> > > > That type enumeration is basically an open-coded allocator. If we do 
> > > > a _real_ allocator (a balanced stack of atomic kmaps) we dont need 
> > > > any of those indices, and all the potential for mismatch goes away 
> > > > as well - a stack nests trivially with IRQ and NMI and arbitrary 
> > > > other contexts.
> > > 
> > > You want types because:
> > >  - they encode the intent, and can be verified
> > >  - they help keep track of the max nesting depth
> > > 
> > > In the proposed implementation all type code basically falls away 
> > > no ! CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, but is kept around for robustness.
> > 
> > But much of the fragility of the types (and their clumsiness - for 
> > example in highpte ops we have to know at which level of the 
> > pagetables we are, and use the right kind of index) is _precisely_ 
> > because we have the types ...
> 
> How will you manage the max depth?

	if (++depth == MAX_DEPTH) {
		print_all_entries_and_nasty_warning();
		 /* hope we'll live long enough for the syslog to touch disk */
		depth = 0;
	}

unbalanced kmap is a bad bug - the easier we make it to catch, the 
better. The system wouldnt survive anyway.

	Ingo
--
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/