[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274257637.2766.11.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:27:17 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...hat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tun: Use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx
Le mercredi 19 mai 2010 à 18:20 +1000, Herbert Xu a écrit :
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:09:42AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > 6) netif_rx() pro is that packet processing is done while stack usage is
> > guaranteed to be low (from process_backlog, using a special softirq
> > stack, instead of current stack)
> >
> > After your patch, tun will use more stack. Is it safe on all contexts ?
>
> Dave also raised this but I believe nothing changes with regards
> to the stack. We currently call do_softirq which does not switch
> stacks.
>
> Only a real interrupt would switch stacks.
This is a bit wrong, at least here (CONFIG_4KSTACKS=y)
Some people still use 32bits these days ;)
Please check arch/x86/kernel/irq_32.c
asmlinkage void do_softirq(void)
{
unsigned long flags;
struct thread_info *curctx;
union irq_ctx *irqctx;
u32 *isp;
if (in_interrupt())
return;
local_irq_save(flags);
if (local_softirq_pending()) {
curctx = current_thread_info();
irqctx = __get_cpu_var(softirq_ctx);
irqctx->tinfo.task = curctx->task;
irqctx->tinfo.previous_esp = current_stack_pointer;
/* build the stack frame on the softirq stack */
isp = (u32 *) ((char *)irqctx + sizeof(*irqctx));
call_on_stack(__do_softirq, isp);
/*
* Shouldnt happen, we returned above if in_interrupt():
*/
WARN_ON_ONCE(softirq_count());
}
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists