From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9186B004F for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <49C3B886.8080408@goop.org> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:38:46 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts References: <49C148AF.5050601@goop.org> <200903191232.05459.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <49C2818B.9060201@goop.org> <20090320044029.GD6807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20090320044029.GD6807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Nick Piggin , Avi Kivity , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List , Xen-devel , Jan Beulich , Ingo Molnar List-ID: Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> Ah, interesting. So disabling interrupts prevents the RCU free from >> happening, and non-atomic pte fetching is a non-issue. So it doesn't >> address the PAE side of the problem. >> > > This would be rcu_sched, correct? > I guess? Whatever it is that ends up calling all the rcu callbacks after the idle. A cpu with disabled interrupts can't go through idle, right? Or is there an explicit way to hold off rcu? J -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org