Re: Any problem if softirq are done in a interrupt context (IRQ stack)?

2007-01-23 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 11:43 +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > [Re-added lkml to the CC list, please don't drop anything from CC] yes, since I would not have replied to this ;) > > On 2007.01.03 17:39:48 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Thanks very much for your clear explanation !

Re: Any problem if softirq are done in a interrupt context (IRQ stack)?

2007-01-03 Thread Björn Steinbrink
[Re-added lkml to the CC list, please don't drop anything from CC] On 2007.01.03 17:39:48 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks very much for your clear explanation ! > > I have another question about irq_exit(), hope you can help me. > > void irq_exit(void) > { > account_syste

Re: Any problem if softirq are done in a interrupt context (IRQ stack)?

2007-01-03 Thread Björn Steinbrink
On 2007.01.03 16:23:28 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello all! > > Kernel version : 2.6.18 > Arch : i386 > > With the following conditions, it is possible that softirqs are > executed in a interrupt context rather than process one > 1) CONFIG_4KSTACKS > ON > That means the dedicated

Any problem if softirq are done in a interrupt context (IRQ stack)?

2007-01-03 Thread Zefang.Wang
Hello all! Kernel version : 2.6.18 Arch : i386 With the following conditions, it is possible that softirqs are executed in a interrupt context rather than process one 1) CONFIG_4KSTACKS > ON That means the dedicated IRQ stack is used for hardirq handler 2) there exist some Hard IRQ whi