[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201011090620.48afafd7@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 09:06:20 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
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 Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:24:41 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >> qeth_qdio_poll
> >> netvsc_channel_cb
> >> napi_watchdog
> >
> > This one runs from a hrtimer, which I believe will be a hard irq
> > context on anything but RT. I could be wrong.
> >
>
> A similar discussion can be found e.g. here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20191126222013.1904785-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de/
> However I don't see any actual outcome.
Interesting, hopefully Eric will chime in. I think the hrtimer issue
was solved. But I'm not actually seeing a lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled()
in __raise_softirq_irqoff() in net, so IDK what that's for?
In any case if NAPI thinks it has irqs off while they're not, and
interacts with other parts of the kernel we may be in for a game of
whack-a-mole.
Perhaps a way around touching force_irqthreads directly in net/ would
be some form of a helper like "theaded_local_irq_save" or such that'd
disable IRQs only if force_irqthreads == 1? Is that cheating? :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists