Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:40:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:40:42 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:7690 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:40:40 -0400 To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: [RFC] 4KB stack + irq stack for x86 In-Reply-To: <20020604225539.F9111@redhat.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20020605144357.A4697@redhat.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 05 Jun 2002 22:40:39 +0200 Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Benjamin LaHaise writes: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:33:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So, as far as I can tell, we now get a nasty aliasing issue on > > "current_thread_info()->flags", and information like NEED_RESCHED and > > SIGPENDING end up being set in the wrong place. They get set on the > > _interrupt_ thread_info, not the "process native" thread_info. > > > > Or did I miss some subtlety? > > Ah, you're right. If anyone uses current_thread_info from IRQ context > it will set the flags in the wrong structure. However, it actually > works because nobody does that currently: all of the _thread_flag users preemptive kernels do use current_thread_info() for every spinlock. this required me to change its implementation on x86-64 from stack arithmetic to access the base register. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/