Re: kernel_thread bogosity

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2000 - 17:29:32 EST

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Kernel bits"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH] Reserved root VM + OOM killer"
In reply to: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: kernel_thread bogosity"
Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: kernel_thread bogosity"
Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: kernel_thread bogosity"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi!

> > How can that work? restore_args ends with iret, anyway, and iret does
> > reload esp afaics...
>
> ... only if there's an IPL change during the iret. Page 3-321 of 24319102.pdf
> from Intel:
>
> [..] If the return is to another privilege level, the IRET instruction
> also pops the stack pointer and SS from the stack, before resuming
> program execution. [..]

Is this different on x86-64 in long mode?
Pavel

-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Kernel bits"
Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH] Reserved root VM + OOM killer"
In reply to: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: kernel_thread bogosity"
Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: kernel_thread bogosity"
Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: kernel_thread bogosity"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:16 EST