[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100624112040.GD578@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:20:41 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:10:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:08 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > And I really want hardirq context for perf callbacks, some code actually
> > > relies on it (I used to have the fallback in the timer softirq and that
> >
> > Surely that could be fixed? *requiring* hard irq context sounds weird.
>
> possibly, but there is no reason what so ever to use softirq here.
Ok so going back to the original self-irq patchkit. Unfortunately the other
reviewer hated that. How to get out of that deadlock?
> > > broke thing at some point).
> >
> > I have one case that needs to sleep (but only when interrupting user code)
> > They key thing in it really is to switch stacks back to process.
>
> softirq can't sleep either, you need a trampoline anywa
Not true, when you interrupt ring 3 it can sleep. You just need to make
sure to run on the right stack and fix up any irq counters.
Anyways this can be solved in a different way too, it would just fit
in there too.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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