[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1413887300.23173.14.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:28:20 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre FOURNIER <alexandre.fournier@...p-e.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Gregory Clément
<gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: RCU stall in af_unix.c, should use spin_lock_irqsave?
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 12:10 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Ok. So it's actually safe to mix spin_lock() and spin_lock_irqsave() on
> the same lock, if you know that this lock will never ever be taken in
> an interrupt context?
Sure.
>
> > mvpp2 is seriously brain damaged : on_each_cpu() cannot be used from
> > a bottom half handler.
>
> That's what I thought. Back to the drawing board then, to fix mvpp2.
>
> Do you think there is a place where we can write down those
> assumptions? It isn't easy to spot whether on_each_cpu() is safe to use
> in a bottom half or not.
>
Really ? kernel/smp.c is full of comments.
Too many comments and people seem to not read them ;)
Take a look at smp_call_function(), which is called from on_each_cpu()
--
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