On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 23:09 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2010-04-02 22:42:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > On Wed 2010-03-31 13:16:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why not simply force IRQF_DISABLED for all MSI interrupts. That still > > > > > > allows nesting for non MSI ones, but it limits the chance of throwing > > > > > > up reasonably well. That's a two liner. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please test whether it resolves the issue at hand ? > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the late answer. Got confirmation that this patch > > > > > fixes the test case. Thanks. > > > > > > > > Ok, I'll push it linus wards and cc stable. I think thats the least > > > > intrusive safe bet we can have right now. > > > > > > stable? I'd say thats way too intrusive for -stable... > > > > So we better let the possible stack overruns unaddressed ? > > -stable should have no regressions, first and foremost. And this is > pretty certain to introduce some, at least on low-powered system with > serial ports. > > So yes, it is probably better to let the possible stack overruns > unaddressed. We have lived with them for 15 years or so... > > (Alternatively, just make the irq stacks bigger? Or just take Andi's > patch, which solves the overruns, and only introduces latency > regressions when it would otherwise crash?) You've got serial ports with MSI interrupts? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
