On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:54:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Levon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:24:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > in_atomic() is supposed to be true in this context, so the test in
> > do_page_fault() catches it.
>
> Ahh, missed that one. So this is an issue that _only_ rt needs to fix.
> OK, thanks for pointing that out.
Thanks! This issue is with an older RT kernel that I am running. In the
version of the kernel I am running nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() are commented
out as described here:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0508.1/1714.html
Newer RT kernels (such as linux-2.6.18-rt5) have reenabled the
add_preempt_count/sub_preempt_count calls in nmi_enter/exit. If I
understand correctly the reason one could not modify the preempt_count
from NMI code is that it could have been in the process of being
modified by non-NMI code. But, in recent RT kernels it appears that
preempt_count is still a single word modified by both NMI and
non-NMI code. What am I missing that now makes this safe?
--
Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
