[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131008102645.GA22639@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:26:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
akpm@...uxfoundation.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [raw v1 2/4] [NET] Use raw_cpu ops for SNMP stats
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:21:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> >
> > > SNMP stats are not protected by preemption but by bh handling.
> >
> > Most forms of bh exclusion work via the preemption count though, and
> > softirq contexts themselves are generally not preemptible [to other CPUs]
> > either.
> >
> > So the warnings should, in most cases, not trigger.
>
> Right, so softirqs run either in the irq tail at which point
> preempt_count += SOFTIRQ_OFFSET and thus preemption is disabled, or it
> runs in ksoftirqd which has strict cpu affinity which also disables the
> warning, and it also increments preempt_count with SOFTIRQ_OFFSET to
> exclude the softirq from interrupts while its running, also disabling
> the warning.
A third context would be syscall-level code that runs with
local_bh_disable()/enable() - but that too ought to have the preempt count
elevated.
> So it should very much not trigger.. if it does you want to know about
> it.
Yes. If nothing else then for the education value.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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