Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1200553 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe

Started byIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
First post2015-08-05 11:10 +0200
Last post2015-08-05 20:40 +0200
Articles 4 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then  NMI-safe Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-08-05 11:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-08-05 20:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then  NMI-safe Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2015-08-05 20:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-08-05 20:40 +0200

#1200553 — Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2015-08-05 11:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe
Message-ID<pU2RY-5aV-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:

> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> @@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
>  	unsigned fsindex, gsindex;
>  	fpu_switch_t fpu_switch;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
> +	WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
> +#endif

Please introduce a less noisy (to the eyes) version of this, something like:

	WARN_ON_DEBUG_ENTRY(this_cpu_read(irq_count));

or so, similar to WARN_ON_FPU().

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201046 — Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe

FromAndy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date2015-08-05 20:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe
Message-ID<pUbBU-Uj-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1200553
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> @@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
>>       unsigned fsindex, gsindex;
>>       fpu_switch_t fpu_switch;
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
>> +     WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
>> +#endif
>
> Please introduce a less noisy (to the eyes) version of this, something like:
>
>         WARN_ON_DEBUG_ENTRY(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
>
> or so, similar to WARN_ON_FPU().

I can do that (or "DEBUG_ENTRY_WARN_ON"?  we seem to be inconsistent
about ordering).

Or would if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY)) WARN_ON(...) be better?

--Andy

>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201051

FromSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date2015-08-05 20:30 +0200
Message-ID<pUbBV-Uj-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1201046
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:24:54 -0700
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> >> @@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
> >>       unsigned fsindex, gsindex;
> >>       fpu_switch_t fpu_switch;
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
> >> +     WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Please introduce a less noisy (to the eyes) version of this, something like:
> >
> >         WARN_ON_DEBUG_ENTRY(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
> >
> > or so, similar to WARN_ON_FPU().
> 
> I can do that (or "DEBUG_ENTRY_WARN_ON"?  we seem to be inconsistent
> about ordering).
> 
> Or would if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY)) WARN_ON(...) be better?
> 

Does WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY) && this_cpu_read(irq_count))
work?

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201053 — Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe

FromAndy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date2015-08-05 20:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe
Message-ID<pUbLA-15n-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1201051
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:24:54 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> >> @@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
>> >>       unsigned fsindex, gsindex;
>> >>       fpu_switch_t fpu_switch;
>> >>
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
>> >> +     WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
>> >> +#endif
>> >
>> > Please introduce a less noisy (to the eyes) version of this, something like:
>> >
>> >         WARN_ON_DEBUG_ENTRY(this_cpu_read(irq_count));
>> >
>> > or so, similar to WARN_ON_FPU().
>>
>> I can do that (or "DEBUG_ENTRY_WARN_ON"?  we seem to be inconsistent
>> about ordering).
>>
>> Or would if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY)) WARN_ON(...) be better?
>>
>
> Does WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY) && this_cpu_read(irq_count))
> work?

I'd be okay with it.  Ingo?

(Except that that line of code is from v1, and v2 looks slightly
different here, but that's beside the point.)

--Andy

>
> -- Steve



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web