[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 07:30:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Now just for clarity, what do we then do with inline sofirq
> > executions: on local_bh_enable() for example, or explicit calls to
> > do_softirq() other than irq exit? Should we keep the current switch
> > to a different softirq stack? If we have a generic irq stack (used
> > for both hard and soft) that is big enough, perhaps we can also
> > switch to this generic irq stack for inline softirqs executions?
> > After all there is no much point in keeping a separate stack for
> > that: this result in cache misses if the inline softirq is
> > interrupted by a hardirq, also inlined softirqs can't happen in
> > hardirq, so there should be no much risk of overruns.
> We can use the same irqstack for this because from the irqstack point
> of view, thats the same as if softirqs get executed from
> irq_exit().

Ok, so I see that's what x86-64 is doing. But x86-32 seems to be using different
stacks for hard and soft irqs for no much reasons (expept maybe to avoid overrun if
the hardirq). And x86-32 only switches to hardirq
stack for the handler. So probably we can use the same stack for the whole and extend
it to before irq_enter() and after irq_exit(), like you suggested.

BTW, we still want the 1st patch of my series I think, as it simply consolidate existing code.
Using the same stack for hard and soft irqs is independant from that.

If you're ok with it, would you agree to apply it?


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-20 21:01    [W:0.097 / U:4.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site