Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 13:01 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote: >> Tiejun Chen wrote: >>> In entry_64.S version of ret_from_except_lite, you'll notice that >>> in the !preempt case, after we've checked MSR_PR we test for any >>> TIF flag in _TIF_USER_WORK_MASK to decide whether to go to do_work >>> or not. However, in the preempt case, we do a convoluted trick to >>> test SIGPENDING only if PR was set and always test NEED_RESCHED ... >>> but we forget to test any other bit of _TIF_USER_WORK_MASK !!! So >>> that means that with preempt, we completely fail to test for things >>> like single step, syscall tracing, etc... >>> >>> This should be fixed as the following path: >>> >>> - Test PR. If set, go to test_work_user, else continue. >>> >>> - In test_work_user, always test for _TIF_USER_WORK_MASK to decide to >>> go to do_work, maybe call it do_user_work >>> >>> - In test_work_kernel, test for _TIF_KERNEL_WORK_MASK which is set to >>> our new flag along with NEED_RESCHED if preempt is enabled and branch to >>> do_kernel_work. >> Ben, >> >> Any comment for this? > > Sorry, I didn't get to review that one yet (nor reply to your newer
I'm nothing, please do this when you're fine completely. Thanks Tiejun > responses), I have very sore eyes and basically had to get off the > computer. Hopefully I'll be better tomorrow. > > Cheers, > Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
