On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:21 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> I very much agree with proto-patch which _copies_ all relevant
> information into caller-supplied structure, keeping module_mutex private.
> Time to split it sanely.
Indeed. The current interface needs to be ripped apart and put
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 08:37:18PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[...]
looking at the problem from another angle: wouldnt this be something
that would benefit from freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes(), and
hence no
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 08:37:18PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
> > >
> > > kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:27:29PM +, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
> >>freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:27:29PM +, Paulo Marques wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled (opposed to
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 08:37:18PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 08:37:18PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[...]
looking at the problem from another angle: wouldnt this be something
that would benefit from freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes(), and
hence no
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:21 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
I very much agree with proto-patch which _copies_ all relevant
information into caller-supplied structure, keeping module_mutex private.
Time to split it sanely.
Indeed. The current interface needs to be ripped apart and put together
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
> >
> > kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
> > modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:49 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Ok, I've just done a few tests with the attached patch. It basically
> > creates a freeze_machine_run function that is equivalent in interface to
> > stop_machine_run, but uses freeze_processes / thaw_processes to stop the
> > machine.
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 14:44 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> [cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
>
> kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
> modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top of
> module_address_lookup() says it's for oops
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 14:44 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
[cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top of
module_address_lookup() says it's for oops resolution
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top of
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:49 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Ok, I've just done a few tests with the attached patch. It basically
creates a freeze_machine_run function that is equivalent in interface to
stop_machine_run, but uses freeze_processes / thaw_processes to stop the
machine.
I've
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:27:29 + Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
> >> freezing processes that have
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled (opposed to just
being preempted)?
It goes much much further than that.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
> freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled (opposed to just
> being preempted)?
It goes much much further than that. Those processes need
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
looking at the problem from another angle: wouldnt this be something
that would benefit from freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes(), and
hence no locking would be required?
I also considered this, but it seemed a little too
* Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >looking at the problem from another angle: wouldnt this be something
> >that would benefit from freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes(), and
> >hence no locking would be required?
>
> I also considered this, but it seemed a little too "blunt" to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top of
module_address_lookup() says it's for oops
* Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
>
> kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
> modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top of
> module_address_lookup() says it's for oops resolution so
* Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top of
module_address_lookup() says it's for oops resolution so races are
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cc'ing folks whose proc files are affected]
kallsyms_lookup() can call module_address_lookup() which iterates over
modules list without module_mutex taken. Comment at the top of
module_address_lookup() says it's for oops
* Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looking at the problem from another angle: wouldnt this be something
that would benefit from freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes(), and
hence no locking would be required?
I also considered this, but it seemed a little too blunt to stop
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looking at the problem from another angle: wouldnt this be something
that would benefit from freeze_processes()/unfreeze_processes(), and
hence no locking would be required?
I also considered this, but it seemed a little too blunt to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled (opposed to just
being preempted)?
It goes much much further than that. Those processes need to
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled (opposed to just
being preempted)?
It goes much much further than that. Those
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:27:29 + Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:16:39 + Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does freeze_processes() / unfreeze_processes() solve this by only
freezing processes that have voluntarily scheduled
28 matches
Mail list logo
