Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in schedule and __might_sleep

From	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in schedule and __might_sleep
Date	2016-05-24 03:50 +0200
Message-ID	<rC9DQ-51L-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <ooiue-8tA-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <ooj6W-12R-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <oojqi-1qw-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <r7oz7-6aX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rC9kt-4VI-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>
>> Or we could just let ksoftirqd do its thing and stop raising
>> HARDIRQ_COUNT.  We could add a new preempt count field just for IST
>> (yuck).  We could try to hijack a different preempt count field
>> (NMI?).  But I kind of like the idea of just reinstating the original
>> patch of explicitly checking that we're on a safe stack in schedule
>> and __might_sleep, since that is the actual condition we care about.
>
> Ping?  I can still trigger this fairly easily on 4.6.

.. I haven't seen a patch from you, last I saw that was kind of what I expected.

That said, I still despise your patch. Why can't you just fix
"in_interrupt()" and be done with it. The original patch was like 50
lines of changes for somethinig that feels like it should be a
one-liner.

And no, we don't add idiotic new config symbols for things like "I
have this one-liner trivial arch helper". What we do is to just test
for such a helper with "#ifdef" (and if it's a inline function we do
#define xyz xyz" so that the #ifdef works).

So the original patch in this thread is still off the table,
especially since there was absolutely no explanation for why it should
be such a crazy complicated thing.

What exactly is it you are nervous about scheduling in NMI's? I agree
that that would be disastrous, but it's not supposed to actually
happen.

              Linus

Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in  schedule and __might_sleep Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-05-24 03:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in  schedule and __might_sleep Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-05-24 03:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in  schedule and __might_sleep Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-05-24 04:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in  schedule and __might_sleep Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-05-24 04:20 +0200

csiph-web