[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: current_thread_info() vs task_thread_info(current)
    On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

    > So how are we going to solve this? Naively I'd think that
    > current_thread_info() is short for task_thread_info(current), and thus
    > the platforms for where this isn't true are broken.
    > I mean, what use is the thread_info not of a thread?
    > Comments?

    Thomas just hit a bug in the platform code of said platform (powerpc
    heh ?) :-)

    We do it right for hard IRQs and for some reason never did it right for

    The code is like this for the former:

    static inline void handle_one_irq(unsigned int irq)


    call_handle_irq(irq, desc, irqtp, desc->handle_irq);
    current->thread.ksp_limit = saved_sp_limit;
    irqtp->task = NULL;

    /* Set any flag that may have been set on the
    * alternate stack
    if (irqtp->flags)
    set_bits(irqtp->flags, &curtp->flags);

    So what we need, I suppose is to add those two last line to
    do_softirq_onstack() as well.

    Now indeed i386 needs a similar treatment on both hard and soft
    irqs (along with getting rid of that stupid duplication of
    call_on_stack in there, I don't think it's worth making the code
    horrible like that to save one clobber and PeterZ reckons we can
    probably avoid it using always_inline anyways).

    I'll let you guys sort i386 out tho, I'll look at fixing ppc tomorrow :-)


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-18 13:57    [W:0.020 / U:2.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site