On 2017/6/19 23:05, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:33 AM, zhong jiang wrote:
>> On 2017/6/19 12:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> It was historically possible to have two concurrent TLB flushes
>>> targeting the same CPU: one initiated locally and one initiated
>>> remotely. This
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:33 AM, zhong jiang wrote:
> On 2017/6/19 12:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> It was historically possible to have two concurrent TLB flushes
>> targeting the same CPU: one initiated locally and one initiated
>> remotely. This can now cause an OOPS in leave_mm() at
>> arch/x
On 2017/6/19 12:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> It was historically possible to have two concurrent TLB flushes
> targeting the same CPU: one initiated locally and one initiated
> remotely. This can now cause an OOPS in leave_mm() at
> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:47:
>
> if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.
It was historically possible to have two concurrent TLB flushes
targeting the same CPU: one initiated locally and one initiated
remotely. This can now cause an OOPS in leave_mm() at
arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:47:
if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK)
BUG();
with th
4 matches
Mail list logo