| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow |
| From: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 11 Dec 2011 01:00:36 +0100 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Ryan C. England" <ryan.england@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20111210221345.GG14273@dastard> |
| References: | <CAAnfqPAm559m-Bv8LkHARm7iBW5Kfs7NmjTFidmg-idhcOq4sQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111209115513.GA19994@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111209221956.GE14273__25752.826271537$1323469420$gmane$org@dastard> <m262hop5kc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111210221345.GG14273@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
> Where does the x86-64 do the interrupt stack switch?
in entry_64.S
>
> 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...
x86-64 always used interrupt stacks and has used softirq stacks
for a long time. 32bit got to it much later (the only good
thing left from that 4k stack "experiment")
-Andi
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Xupeng Yun |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |