[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0707300724120.8151@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:28:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threaded
hardirqs
--
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> >
> > I think this was sent before, and it did cause problems before. Would
> > there be *any* reason to have non-threaded softirqs but threaded
> > hardirqs. I can see lots of issues with that.
>
> please elaborate in precise terms: what issues can you see?
>
Hi Ingo,
I don't remember the exact details, I can try to find the thread. But I
remember someone was having their system lock up strangly. We later found
that they had softirqs as normal softirqs and interrupts as threads. I
think there was some driver that didn't expect the softirq to preempt the
irq handler. Perhaps the softirq was using spin_lock_irq while the irq
thread was just using spin_lock, which I can see as being something
normal.
The standard Linux does not expect an interrupt to be preempted by a
softirq, and with interrupts as threads but not softirqs, I can see that
happening a lot.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists