Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when atomic

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 09:03:01AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Code like
> > > 	spin_lock(&lock);
> > > 	if (copy_to_user(...))
> > > 		rc = ...
> > > 	spin_unlock(&lock);
> > > really *should* generate warnings like it did before.
> > > 
> > > And *only* code like
> > > 	spin_lock(&lock);
> > 
> > Is only code like this valid or also with the spin_lock() dropped?
> > (e.g. the access in patch1 if I remember correctly)
> > 
> > So should page_fault_disable() increment the pagefault counter and the preempt
> > counter or only the first one?
> 
> Given that a sequence like
> 
> 	page_fault_disable();
>  	if (copy_to_user(...))
>  		rc = ...
>  	page_fault_enable();
> 
> is correct code right now I think page_fault_disable() should increase both.
> No need for surprising semantic changes.

OTOH, there is no reason why we need to disable preemption over that
page_fault_disabled() region. There are code pathes which really do
not require to disable preemption for that.

We have that seperated in preempt-rt for obvious reasons and IIRC
Peter Zijlstra tried to distangle it in mainline some time ago. I
forgot why that never got merged.

We tie way too much stuff on the preemption count already, which is a
mightmare because we have no clear distinction of protection
scopes. 

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/