On 06/09/2017 01:48 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
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?)
As a "heads up", I will not be available for any testing from June 10 through
June 17.
Larry
--
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>
