Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-37,: Re: Lockups - lost interrupt

# Re: Lockups - lost interrupt

yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:24:59 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: David R Bacon: "Re: HPT366 and SMP"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: dumb 2.3.18ac2 question on vmlinux.lds"

On Mon, Sep 13, 1999 at 05:10:49PM +0200, mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu wrote:
>
> > > i'm not sure wether this will ever be accepted into the main kernel -
> > > __cli()/__sti()/etc. right now is heavily used and inlined (mostly via
> >
> > The price is paid only if you select RTL in config.
> > my idea is that system.h does
>
> oh, ok. I thought you want to do this 'runtime', by patching a pretty
> normal kernel dynamically.

I'll patch a rtl configed kernel. The idea is that if you selectrtl_config you
get calls via the patch table and if you then insert the rtl module
the patch is made. If you don't want the possibility of rtl you get
inlined cli/sti . Note that on other architectures there is not even
a bloat price since we don't have 8bit cli/sti instructions.

> > movel N+irq_desc,%eax
> > call *%eax
>
> if the int3 solution is implementable (it's a tough problem i think), the
> advantage would be a completely unaffected 'main kernel'. RTL could be
> switched on/off runtime. OTOH, people recompile kernels routinely anyway.

My feeling is that the cost is undetectable and that if you don't want
rtl you run standard code, if you do want, you run a jump table that
allows rtl to be turned on and off.

But I do like the idea of a section, I just don't know how to do it
wouldnt it compile out to similar code ?
...
jmp 1f
.section cli_stuff
1: cli
.section text
...

>
> -- mingo

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

- Next message: David R Bacon: "Re: HPT366 and SMP"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: dumb 2.3.18ac2 question on vmlinux.lds"