[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200812143430.xuzg2ddsl7ouhn5m@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:34:30 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jiafei.Pan@....com,
kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, claudiu.manoil@....com,
ioana.ciornei@....com, yangbo.lu@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] enetc: use napi_schedule to be compatible
with PREEMPT_RT
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:51:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-08-03 18:21:45 [-0700], David Miller wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
> > > The driver calls napi_schedule_irqoff() from a context where, in RT,
> > > hardirqs are not disabled, since the IRQ handler is force-threaded.
> …
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiafei Pan <Jiafei.Pan@....com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> >
> > Applied.
>
> Could these two patches be forwarded -stable, please? The changelog
> describes this as a problem on PREEMPT_RT but this also happens on !RT
> with the `threadirqs' commandline switch.
>
> Sebastian
I expect the driver maintainers to have something to say about this. I
didn't test on stable kernels, and at least for dpaa2-eth, the change
would need to go pretty deep down the stable line.
Also, not really sure who is using the threadirqs option except for
testing purposes.
Thanks,
-Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists