[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191202162651.7jkyj52sny3yownr@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:26:51 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Paul Thomas <pthomas8589@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xdpsock poll with 5.2.21rt kernel
On 2019-12-02 10:36:54 [-0500], Paul Thomas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:48 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-11-12 17:42:42 [-0500], Paul Thomas wrote:
> > > Any thoughts would be appreciated.
> >
> > Could please enable CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP and check if the kernel
> > complains?
>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Well, it does complain (report below), but I'm not sure it's related.
> The other thing I tried was the AF_XDP example here:
> https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tutorial/tree/master/advanced03-AF_XDP
>
> With this example poll() always seems to block correctly, so I think
> maybe there is something wrong with the xdpsock_user.c example or how
> I'm using it.
>
> [ 259.591480] BUG: assuming atomic context at net/core/ptp_classifier.c:106
> [ 259.591488] in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 953, name: irq/22-eth%d
> [ 259.591494] CPU: 0 PID: 953 Comm: irq/22-eth%d Tainted: G WC
> 5.
>
> 2.21-rt13-00016-g93898e751d0e #90
> [ 259.591499] Hardware name: Enclustra XU5 SOM (DT)
> [ 259.591501] Call trace:
> [ 259.591503] dump_backtrace (/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:94)
> [ 259.591514] show_stack (/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:151)
> [ 259.591520] dump_stack (/lib/dump_stack.c:115)
> [ 259.591526] __cant_sleep (/kernel/sched/core.c:6386)
> [ 259.591531] ptp_classify_raw (/./include/linux/compiler.h:194
Is this the only splat? Nothing more? I would expect something at boot
time, too.
So this part expects disabled preemption. Other invocations disable
preemption. The whole BPF part is currently not working on -RT.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists