lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix
From
Date
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 15:56 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:42:57PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 04:44 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > So the safest way to fix this is to unconditionally call do_softirq()
> > > from irq_exit().
> > > A performance penalty may come along but safety primes.
> > >
> > > We should probably do that and work on longer term solutions (Kconfig
> > > based arch switch, etc...)
> > > for the next merge window?
> >
> > As you prefer, though I'm keen on getting the "fast" version in RHEL7 if
> > RH will take it :-)
>
> So what is the fast version? Converting __do_softirq() to do_softirq()
> unconditionally.
>
> RH will accept any fix that goes upstream.

No, me fixing powerpc do_IRQ to do irq_exit run on the irq stack, and
your fix for everybody else with an ifdef such that x86_64 and powerpc
get to skip the additional stack switch.

> >
> > From the generic code POV, it's a one-liner #ifdef to select between
> > do_softirq and __do_softirq() right ? Then it's up to the arch to
> > #define I_CAN_DO_FAST !
>
> I'd rather say #define I_CAN_DO_SAFE :)
>
> But I guess the kind of symbol we want is some ARCH_HAS_IRQ_STACK_LOW_HANDLER

ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK

Cheers,
Ben.

> >
> > > I'll respin the series plus the regression fix, unless somebody has a
> > > better solution.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ben.
> >
> >




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-24 23:21    [W:0.173 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site