On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It fixes stacks overruns reported by Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1378330796.4321.50.camel%40pasglop
>
> So I don't really dislike this patch-series, but isn't "irq_exit()"
> (which calls the new softirq_on_stack()) already running in the
> context of the irq stack? And it's run at the very end of the irq
> processing, so the irq stack should be empty too at that point.
Right, but most of the implementations are braindamaged.
irq_enter();
handle_irq_on_hardirq_stack();
irq_exit();
instead of doing:
switch_stack()
irq_enter()
handle_irq()
irq_exit()
restore_stack()
So in the case of softirq processing (the likely case) we end up doing:
switch_to_hardirq_stack()
...
restore_original_stack()
switch_to_softirq_stack()
...
restore_original_stack()
Two avoidable stack switch operations for no gain.
> I'm assuming that the problem is that since we're already on the irq
> stack, if *another* irq comes in, now that *other* irq doesn't get yet
> another irq stack page. And I'm wondering whether we shouldn't just
> fix that (hopefully unlikely) case instead? So instead of having a
> softirq stack, we'd have just an extra irq stack for the case where
> the original irq stack is already in use.
Why not have a single irq_stack large enough to accomodate interrupt
handling during softirq processing? We have no interrupt nesting so
the maximum stack depth necessary is
max(softirq_stack_usage) + max(irq_stack_usage)
Today we allocate THREAD_SIZE_ORDER for the hard and the soft context,
so allocating 2 * THREAD_SIZE_ORDER should be sufficient.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
