On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 12:09:46AM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 04:52:20PM -0500, Kapoor, Pankaj wrote: > > > Now there are 2 cases that can happen > > > > 1. Since we have not exited the ISR and the exception level has still not > > been restored there can be no more interrupts that are generated in the > > system. In such a case does that mean that the all bottom half handlers > > pending execution will run with interrupts disabled. > > NOTE: This does not seem likely because the local_irq_enable routine > > calls _sti which clears the exception level in the status register and > > also sets the IE bit. > > > > 2. If we have large number of tasklets or if the bottom half handlers take > > time to execute, then we could get another timer interrupt or other > > device interrupts causing context saves which would cause the stack to > > grow and CRASH the system. > > Interrupts are disabled while the respective interrupt handler is running. > They are re-enabled for "bottom halves", i.e., in do_softirq(). I think that is what the sender is worrying about. Jun
