[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Question about in_interrupt() semantics with regard to softirqs.
    On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Justin Seyster <> wrote:
    > I'm trying to understand the in_interrupt() function, and it seems
    > that it will return true for normal, non-interrupt code that disables
    > bottom half processing.  It looks like that behavior is intentional,
    > but I don't understand why it's designed that way.  I'm sorry if I'm
    > stating something obvious here; it would help me a lot if somebody
    > double checked my reasoning!
    > in_interrupt() checks a hardirq count and a softirq count, but I found
    > out that these two counts behave very differently.  The hardirq count
    > tracks the nesting depth of hardware interrupts (which is what I would
    > expect), but the softirq count behaves like the preempt count,
    > tracking whether softirqs are currently enabled.
    > So if normal code (executing on behalf of a user process) disables
    > softirqs with local_bh_disable(), it will get a true return value from
    > in_interrupt() until it finally reenables them.  But disabling
    > hardirqs will not have the same effect: the hardirq count is
    > unchanged, and in_interrupt() will still return false.
    > My question is: is there a design decision for this asymmetry between
    > hard and softirqs?  Also, is there a function that does what I really
    > wanted, which is to return true iff execution is actually in
    > bottom-half context?

    For the function you want, you can take a look at commit:


    Only stand for myself
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-30 03:19    [W:0.022 / U:20.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site