* David Hildenbrand <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:50:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Just to make sure we have a common understanding (as written in my cover
> > > letter):
> > >
> > > Your suggestion won't work with !CONFIG_PREEMPT (!CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT).
> > > If
> > > there is no preempt counter, in_atomic() won't work.
> >
> > But there is, we _always_ have a preempt_count, and irq_enter() et al.
> > _always_ increment the relevant bits.
> >
> > The thread_info::preempt_count field it never under PREEMPT_COUNT
> > include/asm-generic/preempt.h provides stuff regardless of
> > PREEMPT_COUNT.
> >
> > See how __irq_enter() -> preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET) ->
> > __preempt_count_add() _always_ just works.
> >
> > Its only things like preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() that get
> > munged depending on PREEMPT_COUNT/PREEMPT.
> >
>
> Sorry for the confusion. Sure, there is always the count.
>
> My point is that preempt_disable() won't result in an in_atomic() == true
> with !PREEMPT_COUNT, so I don't see any point in adding in to the pagefault
> handlers. It is not reliable.
That's why we have the preempt_count_inc()/dec() methods that are
always available.
So where's the problem?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
