On 07/11/2013 03:15 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/10/2013 01:02:19 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
We should ensure the preemption cannot occur while calling get_paca()
insdide hard_irq_disable(), otherwise the paca_struct may be the
wrong one just after. And btw, we may update timing stats in this case.
The soft-ee mechanism depends on accessing the PACA directly via r13 to avoid
this. We probably should be using inline asm to read was_enabled rather than
Yes.
hoping the compiler doesn't do anything silly.
Do you recommend I should directly replace get_paca() with local_paca inside
hard_irq_disable()?
#define hard_irq_disable() do { \
u8 _was_enabled = get_paca()->soft_enabled; \
-> u8 _was_enabled = local_paca->soft_enabled;
But is this safe for all scenarios?
Tiejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
