On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: >> >> The exception handlers which use the IST stacks don't necessarily >> set irq count. Maybe they should. > > Hmm. I think they should. Since they clearly must not schedule, as > they use a percpu stack. > > Which exceptions use IST? > > [ grep grep ] > > Looks like stack, doublefault, nmi, debug and mce. And yes, I really > think they should all raise the irq count if they don't already. > Rather than add random arch-specific "let's check that we're on the > right stack" code to the might-sleep stuff, just use the one we have. >
Does that include nmi? I'm a bit afraid of touching that code. It's certainly easy enough to bump irq_count in the paranoid entries. --Andy > Linus -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
