Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

2019-06-02 Thread Anshuman Khandual
On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > The

Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

2019-05-31 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > >> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong

Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

2019-05-31 Thread Anshuman Khandual
On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>> correct? >> >> Here it expects context to be already n

Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

2019-05-30 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one > > correct? > > Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed > generic functi

Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

2019-05-30 Thread Anshuman Khandual
On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures >> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a >> single implementation, general

Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

2019-05-30 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures > duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a > single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. > kprobes_b

[RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

2019-05-29 Thread Anshuman Khandual
Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault() must not be