Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

[Frederic Weisbecker]

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?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/