[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100813175157.GA29586@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:51:57 -0400
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linville@...driver.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netpoll: use non-BH variant of RCU
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:29:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > But this doesn't really solve the problem for netif_rx. The reason
> > is that netif_rx can either be called with IRQs on OR off. So we
> > need to take the right precautions in the case where IRQs are
> > enabled along with BH.
>
> Interesting...
>
> Is it possible that IRQs are off at rcu_read_lock_bh_irqsoff() time, but
> enabled by the time we get to rcu_read_unlock_bh_irqsoff()? I hope not,
> but have to ask. If I am guaranteed of the same state in both cases,
> I can do something like the following:
Yes in our case it's certainly guaranteed that IRQs will remain
off.
> But all in all, mightn't it be easier to remove the checks from
> _local_bh_enable(), and then just use rcu_read_lock_bh()? Have those
> checks really been that helpful in finding bugs? ;-)
You are right. It would be much simpler to simply have it not
warn.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists