From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: current_thread_info() vs task_thread_info(current)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:54:57 +1000
Message-ID: <1310990097.25044.307.camel@pasglop>
References: <1310988183.13765.56.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:53732 "EHLO gate.crashing.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756399Ab1GRLzU (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:55:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1310988183.13765.56.camel@twins>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> So how are we going to solve this? Naively I'd think that
> current_thread_info() is short for task_thread_info(current), and thus
> the platforms for where this isn't true are broken.
> 
> I mean, what use is the thread_info not of a thread?
> 
> Comments?

Thomas just hit a bug in the platform code of said platform (powerpc
heh ?) :-)

We do it right for hard IRQs and for some reason never did it right for
softirqs.

The code is like this for the former:

static inline void handle_one_irq(unsigned int irq)
{

        .../...

	call_handle_irq(irq, desc, irqtp, desc->handle_irq);
	current->thread.ksp_limit = saved_sp_limit;
	irqtp->task = NULL;

	/* Set any flag that may have been set on the
	 * alternate stack
	 */
	if (irqtp->flags)
		set_bits(irqtp->flags, &curtp->flags);
}

So what we need, I suppose is to add those two last line to
do_softirq_onstack() as well.

Now indeed i386 needs a similar treatment on both hard and soft
irqs (along with getting rid of that stupid duplication of
call_on_stack in there, I don't think it's worth making the code
horrible like that to save one clobber and PeterZ reckons we can
probably avoid it using always_inline anyways).

I'll let you guys sort i386 out tho, I'll look at fixing ppc tomorrow :-)

Cheers,
Ben.