[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210216084230.GA23669@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:42:30 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
David Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/33] netfs: Use in_interrupt() not in_softirq()
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:46:23PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> The in_softirq() in netfs_rreq_terminated() works fine for the cache being
> on a normal disk, as the completion handlers may get called in softirq
> context, but for an NVMe drive, the completion handler may get called in
> IRQ context.
>
> Fix to use in_interrupt() instead of in_softirq() throughout the read
> helpers, particularly when deciding whether to punt code that might sleep
> off to a worker thread.
We must not use either check, as they all are unreliable especially
for PREEMPT-RT.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists