[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1379997777.5443.24.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:42:57 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@....ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 04:44 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> So the safest way to fix this is to unconditionally call do_softirq()
> from irq_exit().
> A performance penalty may come along but safety primes.
>
> We should probably do that and work on longer term solutions (Kconfig
> based arch switch, etc...)
> for the next merge window?
As you prefer, though I'm keen on getting the "fast" version in RHEL7 if
RH will take it :-)
>From the generic code POV, it's a one-liner #ifdef to select between
do_softirq and __do_softirq() right ? Then it's up to the arch to
#define I_CAN_DO_FAST !
> I'll respin the series plus the regression fix, unless somebody has a
> better solution.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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