[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <725ba7ca-0818-074b-c380-15abaa5d037b@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:06:25 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: John Keeping <john@...anate.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Don't call _irqoff() with hardirqs enabled
On 09.10.2020 17:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:54:06 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> I'm thinking about a __napi_schedule version that disables hard irq's
>> conditionally, based on variable force_irqthreads, exported by the irq
>> subsystem. This would allow to behave correctly with threadirqs set,
>> whilst not loosing the _irqoff benefit with threadirqs unset.
>> Let me come up with a proposal.
>
> I think you'd need to make napi_schedule_irqoff() behave like that,
> right? Are there any uses of napi_schedule_irqoff() that are disabling
> irqs and not just running from an irq handler?
>
Right, the best approach depends on the answer to the latter question.
I didn't check this yet, therefore I described the least intrusive approach.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists