[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1604300007070.27368@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 00:11:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 05/18] sched: add task flag for preempt IRQ
tracking
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > NMI, MCE and interrupts aren't a problem because they have dedicated
> > stacks, which are easy to detect. If the tasks' stack is on an
> > exception stack or an irq stack, we consider it unreliable.
>
> Only on x86_64.
Well, MCEs are more or less x86-specific as well. But otherwise good
point, thanks Andy.
So, how does stack layout generally look like in case when NMI is actually
running on proper kernel stack? I thought it's guaranteed to contain
pt_regs anyway in all cases. Is that not guaranteed to be the case?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists