![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote: > --- linux-dev.orig/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c 2005-06-01 17:51:36.000000000 -0700 > +++ linux-dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c 2005-06-01 17:54:32.000000000 -0700 > [...]> @@ -102,6 +103,12 @@ fastcall unsigned int do_IRQ(struct pt_r > ); > } else > #endif > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ > + if (dyn_tick->state & (DYN_TICK_ENABLED | DYN_TICK_SKIPPING) && irq != 0) > + dyn_tick->interrupt(irq, NULL, regs); > +#endif > + > __do_IRQ(irq, regs); Forgive me if I'm being obtuse (again...), but this hunk doesn't look like it would work well in the 4K stacks case. When 4K stacks are being used, dyn_tick->interrupt() will only get called in the nested interrupt case, when the interrupt stack is already in use. This change also pushes the non-assembly __do_IRQ() call out of the else branch, meaning that, when the switch is made to the interrupt stack (most of the time), __do_IRQ() will be called twice for the same interrupt. It looks to me like you want to put your #ifdef chunk *after* the call to __do_IRQ(), unless you have some reason for needing it to happen before the regular interrupt handler is invoked. What am I missing? jon Jonathan Corbet Executive editor, LWN.net corbet@lwn.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-06-07 20:41 [W:1.526 / U:0.080 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||