[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222908751.31183.79.camel@perihelion.int.jonmasters.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:52:31 -0400
From: Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sven Dietrich <sdietrich@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 5/5] genirq: make irq threading robust
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 23:02 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> To make sure that a crashed irq thread does not cause more trouble
> when the irq code tries to wake up a gone thread or the device code
> calling free_irq and trying to kthread_stop the dead thread, we plug a
> pointer to irqaction into task_struct, which is evaluated in
> do_exit(). When the thread crashes the do_exit code marks the thread
> as DIED in irqaction->flags to prevent further wakeups from the
> interrupt handler code.
> @@ -1301,6 +1301,7 @@ struct task_struct {
> int latency_record_count;
> struct latency_record latency_record[LT_SAVECOUNT];
> #endif
> + struct irqaction *irqaction;
> };
Is that going to fly? For the vast majority of task_structs this is now
a wasted 4/8 bytes that won't be used.
Jon.
--
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