Re: Fwd: [PATCH] kmemcheck: SMP support

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 10:30 am

On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:19:43 +0200
"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote:


Yes, thanks. My opinion is that mmiotrace can live well enough with
runtime-disabling extra cpus when tracing starts. Multi-cpu effects to
hardware access are not really in the focus but seeing the access in
the first place. I'd rather wait to see if the per-cpu page table
feature starts to evolve.

I quickly read through your code and tried to come up with race
scenarios, but failed. Ok, one question which might be far fetched:
is there a window for things to go wrong, when one cpu has faulted
and is submitting the NMI, but another cpu is managing cpus' online
state at the time? Is there a place in the cpu state management
that might fault at a point where cpu maps are inconsistent?
I doubt, but I don't know. And of course this could be a problem
only when something is bringing cpus on- or offline.

Btw. isn't reserving a cpumask_t variable from the stack discouraged
because it might have to deal with thousands of cpus and consume a
lot of memory?


Thanks.


-- 
Pekka Paalanen
http://www.iki.fi/pq/
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Fwd: [PATCH] kmemcheck: SMP support, Pekka Paalanen, (Sun May 25, 10:30 am)