[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332773774.3500.87.camel@deadeye>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:56:14 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Erik Hugne <erik.hugne@...csson.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] Kernel preemption of BH handler
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 11:20 +0200, Erik Hugne wrote:
> I have a BH handler that processes packets received from a netdevice.
>
> my_bh_handler() {
> spin_lock_bh(my_lock);
> /*do stuff*/
> spin_unlock_bh(my_lock);
> /*do more stuff*/
> }
spin_lock_bh() means 'spin lock with contending soft-interrupts' and not
'spin lock from a soft-interrupt'. You probably need to use it in
process context but not here.
> First packet is received, and my_bh_handler() is currently processing it.
> Now a new packet is received by the NIC and my_bh_handler() is preempted
> after my_lock have been released.
You don't explain how this handler is invoked, but normally it would be
scheduled to run a second time and would not preempt the first call.
Ben.
> Is it possible that the second invocation of the BH routine is allowed
> to finish before the first?
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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