| To: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:13:45 +1100 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Ryan C. England" <ryan.england@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <m262hop5kc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CAAnfqPAm559m-Bv8LkHARm7iBW5Kfs7NmjTFidmg-idhcOq4sQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111209115513.GA19994@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111209221956.GE14273__25752.826271537$1323469420$gmane$org@dastard> <m262hop5kc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:52:51AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > You forgot about interrupt stacking - that trace shows the system
> > took an interrupt at the point of highest stack usage in the
> > writeback call chain.... :/
>
> The interrupts are always running on other stacks these days
> (even 32bit got switched over).
Where does the x86-64 do the interrupt stack switch?
I know the x86 32 bit interrupt handler switches to an irq/softirq
context stack, but the 64 bit one doesn't appear to. Indeed,
arch/x86/kernel/irq_{32,64}.c are very different, and only the 32
bit irq handler switches to another stack to process the
interrupts...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |