On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Please don't do this, it will result in some _really_ nasty problems with > > X and other programs that potentially disable interrupts in user > > space. > > If user program causes page fault with interrupts disabled, it is > certainly buggy, right? No. It may do a best-effort thing. It may also do a best-_performance_ thing, in leaving interrupts disabled over a piece of code that doesn't care, knowing that disabling interrupts is expensive. Or it may just be a simple case of simplicity: disable interrupts over the whole region, knowing that only a part of it matters. It by no means is automatically a bug. And it unquestionably _does_ happen. We used to warn about it. We stopped. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- Re: BUG in x86 do_page_fault? [was Re: in_atomic doesn't countlocal_irq_disable?]Linus Torvalds
- Re: BUG in x86 do_page_fault? [was Re: in_atomic doesn't count local_irq_disable?]Pavel Machek
- Prev by Date: Re: xterm scrolling speed - scheduling weirdness in 2.6 ?!
- Next by Date: Re: xterm scrolling speed - scheduling weirdness in 2.6 ?!
- Previous by thread: Re: BUG in x86 do_page_fault? [was Re: in_atomic doesn't count local_irq_disable?]
- Next by thread: Re: udev and devfs - The final word
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]