[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 23:05:21 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: run softirqs on the per-CPU IRQ stack
On 2022/7/7 21:53, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:43 PM Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> wrote:
>> On 2022/7/7 20:58, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 1:05 PM Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> wrote:
>>> Are there any architectures left that use IRQ stacks but don't
>>> set HAVE_SOFTIRQ_ON_OWN_STACK? If not, we could
>>> also consider removing the Kconfig symbol and just requiring
>>> it to be done this way (for non-PREEMPT_RT).
>>
>> I haven't taken a close look at other architectures than x86 and arm,
>> but I think it's a good idea.
>
> I had another look in the meantime, and I think it's only mips and loongarch
> now that don't use HAVE_SOFTIRQ_ON_OWN_STACK. Not sure about
> arch/um/, which is a bit different from the rest.
I just glanced at arch/um/, and it's really different from the rest:
* Unlike i386, UML doesn't receive IRQs on the normal kernel stack
* and switch over to the IRQ stack after some preparation.
>
> Arnd
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists