Re: [PATCH -rt 2/9] Dont allow non-threaded softirqs and threadedhardirqs

[Steven Rostedt]

--
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I think this was sent before, and it did cause problems before. Would
> > there be *any* reason to have non-threaded softirqs but threaded
> > hardirqs. I can see lots of issues with that.
>
> please elaborate in precise terms: what issues can you see?
>

Hi Ingo,

I don't remember the exact details, I can try to find the thread. But I
remember someone was having their system lock up strangly. We later found
that they had softirqs as normal softirqs and interrupts as threads.  I
think there was some driver that didn't expect the softirq to preempt the
irq handler.  Perhaps the softirq was using spin_lock_irq while the irq
thread was just using spin_lock, which I can see as being something
normal.

The standard Linux does not expect an interrupt to be preempted by a
softirq, and with interrupts as threads but not softirqs, I can see that
happening a lot.

-- Steve

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/