From: David Mosberger-Tang <David.Mosberger@acm.org>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about interrupt enabling/disabling in kernel exit path
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:16:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ed5aea430511151316s308e7eedhf02e6c1f4bbd2f42@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1131559925.5214.100.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On 11/15/05, Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> Lee Schermerhorn wrote on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:21 PM
> > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 13:52 -0800, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> > > > Then I notice that after we return from do_notify_resume_user() we don't
> > > > recheck TIF_NEED_RESCHED, etc. in the thread_info flags.
> > >
> > > Why do you say this? It's not true. After processing pending work,
> > > we go back to .work_processed_{syscall,kernel), which will again
> > > invoke .work_pending, if necessary.
> >
> > OK. I guess I'm misinterpreting the comments on the line labeled
> > '.ret10:'.
> > Say's it's setting p6 to zero, so no recheck. I'm not fluent [writing
> > nor reading] ia64 assembler, but it appeared to me that with p6 set to
> > zero on return from notify_resume(), the checks for more work back
> > at .work_processed_* would be disabled.
> >
>
> Looking at the code, I think Lee is correct that upon returning from
> notify_resume_user, p6 is turned off and subsequently turns off all
> the check in work_pending.
Yes, I goofed.
The ia64 code shouldn't be different from other platforms in this
respect though. If x86 nowadays does the re-check unconditionally, we
need to look into what happened. Perhaps x86 got updated and we
missed that update for ia64?
--david
--
Mosberger Consulting LLC, voice/fax: 510-744-9372,
http://www.mosberger-consulting.com/
35706 Runckel Lane, Fremont, CA 94536
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-15 21:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-09 18:12 Question about interrupt enabling/disabling in kernel exit path Lee Schermerhorn
2005-11-09 22:31 ` Stephane Eranian
2005-11-14 21:52 ` David Mosberger-Tang
2005-11-15 20:21 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2005-11-15 21:04 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-11-15 21:16 ` David Mosberger-Tang [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ed5aea430511151316s308e7eedhf02e6c1f4bbd2f42@mail.gmail.com \
--to=david.mosberger@acm.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox