Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/7] powerpc: regain entire stack space | From | Christophe LEROY <> | Date | Wed, 3 Oct 2018 08:45:25 +0200 |
| |
Le 03/10/2018 à 08:30, Nicholas Piggin a écrit : > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:52:59 +0200 > Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: > >> Le 03/10/2018 à 07:34, Nicholas Piggin a écrit : >>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 12:30:25 +0000 (UTC) >>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> thread_info is not anymore in the stack, so the entire stack >>>> can now be used. >>> >>> Nice. >>> >>>> >>>> In the meantime, all pointers to the stacks are not anymore >>>> pointers to thread_info so this patch changes them to void* >>> >>> Wasn't this previously effectively already the case with patch >>> 3/7? You had thread_info sized space left there, but it was not >>> used or initialized right? Does it make sense to move this part >>> of it to the previous patch? >> >> Not really. >> >> In 3/7 I changed the prototypes of two functions that really used the >> pointer as a task pointer only.
I meant 2/7 here sorry.
>> >> Here it change things that before 4/7 were really used as both stack >> pointers and thread_info pointers.
And here I meant 3/7
> > What uses it as a thread_info pointer? It seems more like a stack > with some amount of unused space in it but that's all.
Before 3/7, we have
void do_softirq_own_stack(void) { struct thread_info *curtp, *irqtp;
curtp = current_thread_info(); irqtp = softirq_ctx[smp_processor_id()]; irqtp->task = curtp->task; irqtp->flags = 0; call_do_softirq(irqtp); irqtp->task = NULL;
/* Set any flag that may have been set on the * alternate stack */ if (irqtp->flags) set_bits(irqtp->flags, &curtp->flags); }
After 3/7, we have
void do_softirq_own_stack(void) { struct thread_info *irqtp;
irqtp = softirq_ctx[smp_processor_id()]; call_do_softirq(irqtp); }
So now only we can change irqtp to void* can't we ?
> > That said I don't care to nitpick too much where things go exactly > if you like it better here that's fine.
No worry, I may have missed something, your comments are always welcome.
Thanks Christophe
> > Thanks, > Nick >
|  |