On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 09:57 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Michael Neuling writes:
>
> > Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
> >>
> >> We need to use smb_rmb when looking at hpte slot array. Otherwise we could
> >> reorder the hpte_slot array load bfore even we marked t
On 13 May 2013 11:34, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 April 2013 12:19, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 9 April 2013 14:05, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 5 April 2013 12:16, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 April 2013 18:24, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This patch moves cpufreq driver of powerpc platform to driv
Michael Neuling writes:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
>>
>> We need to use smb_rmb when looking at hpte slot array. Otherwise we could
>> reorder the hpte_slot array load bfore even we marked the pmd trans huge.
>
> Does this need to go back into the stable series?
>
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
>
> We need to use smb_rmb when looking at hpte slot array. Otherwise we could
> reorder the hpte_slot array load bfore even we marked the pmd trans huge.
Does this need to go back into the stable series?
Mikey
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kum
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 04:23:22PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 19:40 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > OK I get it. So let me correct myself. The simple code
> > that does something like this under a spinlock:
> > > preempt_disable
> > > pagefault_disable
On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 19:40 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> OK I get it. So let me correct myself. The simple code
> that does something like this under a spinlock:
> > preempt_disable
> > pagefault_disable
> > error = copy_to_user
> > pagefault_enable
> > preempt_
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:06:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 16:34 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Right but we need to keep it working on upstream as well.
> > If I do preempt_enable under a spinlock upstream won't it
> > try to sleep under spinlock?
>
> No it w
On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 16:34 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Right but we need to keep it working on upstream as well.
> If I do preempt_enable under a spinlock upstream won't it
> try to sleep under spinlock?
No it wont. A spinlock calls preempt_disable implicitly, and a
preempt_enable() will
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 08:34:04AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 12:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > No, I was not assuming that. What I'm trying to say is that a caller
> > that does something like this under a spinlock:
> > preempt_disable
> > pagefault_di
On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 12:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> No, I was not assuming that. What I'm trying to say is that a caller
> that does something like this under a spinlock:
> preempt_disable
> pagefault_disable
> error = copy_to_user
> pagefault_enable
> pree
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 02:16:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > There are several ways to make sure might_fault
> > calling function does not sleep.
> > One is to use it on kernel or otherwise locked memory - apparently
> > n
11 matches
Mail list logo
