> From: David Hildenbrand > ... > > Although it might not be optimal, but keeping a separate counter for > > pagefault_disable() as part of the preemption counter seems to be the only > > doable thing right now. I am not sure if a completely separated counter is > > even > > possible, increasing the size of thread_info. > > What about adding (say) 0x10000 for the more restrictive test? > > David >
You mean as part of the preempt counter? The current layout (on my branch) is * PREEMPT_MASK: 0x000000ff * SOFTIRQ_MASK: 0x0000ff00 * HARDIRQ_MASK: 0x000f0000 * NMI_MASK: 0x00100000 * PREEMPT_ACTIVE: 0x00200000 I would have added * PAGEFAULT_MASK: 0x03C00000 So 4 bit == 16 levels (tbd) By implementing scope checks in the debug case like done for the regular preempt_count_inc() preempt_count_dec(), we could catch over/underflows. Thanks, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
