| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS causing stack overflow |
| From: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:31:30 +0100 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Ryan C. England" <ryan.england@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20111211230511.GH14273@dastard> |
| References: | <CAAnfqPAm559m-Bv8LkHARm7iBW5Kfs7NmjTFidmg-idhcOq4sQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111209115513.GA19994@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111209221956.GE14273__25752.826271537$1323469420$gmane$org@dastard> <m262hop5kc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111210221345.GG14273@dastard> <20111211000036.GH24062@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111211230511.GH14273@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
> But that happens before do_IRQ is called, so what is the do_IRQ call > chain doing on this stack given that we've already supposed to have > switched to the interrupt stack before do_IRQ is called? Not sure I understand the question. The pt_regs are on the original stack (but they are quite small), all the rest is on the new stack. ISTs are not used for interrupts, only for some special exceptions. do_IRQ doesn't switch any stacks on 64bit. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Xupeng Yun |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Data corruption, md5 changes on every mount, Dave Chinner |
| 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] |