From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, entry: Switch stacks on a paranoid entry from userspace
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:03:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141117200354.GB25157@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXOPc3j8dC3rMS1jbcAofZkXDhFupbtHZgYw1JpmZasOQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:57:22AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Would it be worth making a decision on task_work_add vs. stack
> switching first?
Probably a prudent thing to do in order to save unnecessary cycles :-)
> Stack switching pros: all this lockless allocation stuff is completely
> unnecessary, and it's plausible that the stack switching code will be
> added anyway.
Yes.
However, I'd like to be very sure this thing doesn't introduce any
regressions to the MCA code. So even if Tony's testing passes, I'd like
to be very conservative here and stress it more than usual. Because once
this thing hits upstream and stuff starts breaking, it'll be a serious
PITA reverting it.
I hope you can understand my concerns.
Btw, which branch has your latest version - I'd like to take a look at
it in detail.
> task_work_add pros: conceptually simpler mce.c diff.
Right, that's the safe path.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-17 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-11 20:56 Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-11 21:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-11 22:00 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-11 22:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-11 22:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-11 22:33 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-11 22:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-11 23:09 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-11 23:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-12 0:22 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-12 0:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-12 1:06 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-12 2:01 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-12 2:06 ` Tony Luck
2014-11-12 10:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-12 15:48 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-12 16:22 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-12 17:17 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-12 17:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-13 18:04 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-14 21:56 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-14 22:07 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-17 18:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-17 19:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-17 20:03 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2014-11-17 20:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-17 21:55 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-17 22:26 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-17 23:16 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-18 0:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-18 0:22 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-18 0:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-18 18:30 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-18 23:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-18 23:26 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-18 16:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-12 22:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-11-12 23:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-12 23:41 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-13 0:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-13 0:31 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-13 1:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-13 3:03 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-13 18:43 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-13 22:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-13 22:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-13 22:33 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-13 22:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-13 23:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-14 0:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-14 1:20 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-14 1:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-14 17:49 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-14 19:10 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-14 19:37 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-14 18:27 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-14 10:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-14 17:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-14 17:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-14 17:26 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-11-14 18:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-13 10:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-13 21:23 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141117200354.GB25157@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®