Re: [PATCH 0/3] minor cleanups to EFLAGS initialisation inret_from_fork

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 01:47 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > schedule (sched.c)
> > >         ...
> > >         raw_spin_lock_irq
> > >         ...
> > >         context_switch
> > >                 switch_to
> > >                         "jnz   ret_from_fork\n\t"
> > >                         pushq_cfi kernel_eflags(%rip)
> > >                         popfq_cfi                               # reset kernel eflags
> > > 
> > > --->                    irqs are still disabled
> > > 
> > >                         call schedule_tail                      # rdi: 'prev' task parameter
> > >                                 finish_lock_switch
> > >                                         raw_spin_unlock_irq
> > > 
> > > I bet raw_spin_lock_irq at the beginning of the schedule() is set
> > > for a reason and such change is not safe. Though I may be missing
> > > something again...
> > > 
> > 
> > This definitely doesn't look "obviously safe" to me.  However, does
> > anyone see a problem with unconditionally leaving IF disabled even on 32
> > bits (I haven't traced all the paths yet), i.e. doing the *opposite* of
> > Ian's patch #2?

Right, enabling IRQs there isn't cool, currently there's still
__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW but we're working hard on getting rid of
that nightmare.

There's a number of very subtle things that can go wrong when you enable
interrupts over the context switch.

Leaving IRQs disabled should be the right thing, on x86 we should
_never_ have interrupts enabled there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/