On 06/08/2017 10:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > But I guess you are primary after syncing the preemptive mode for 64 and > 32b systems, right? I agree that having a different model is more than > unfortunate because 32b gets much less testing coverage and so a risk of > introducing a new bug is just a matter of time. Maybe we should make > pte_offset_map disable preemption and currently noop pte_unmap to > preempt_enable. The overhead should be pretty marginal on x86_64 but not > all arches have per-cpu preempt count. So I am not sure we really want > to add this to just for the debugging purposes... I think adding that overhead for everyone would be unfortunate. It would be acceptable, if it was done only for the config option that enables the might_sleep() checks (CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP?) Vlastimil -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
