xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS causing stack overflow

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>