[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:47:35 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: dev: Make rps_lock() disable
interrupts.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:28:48 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> /* Schedule NAPI for backlog device
> * We can use non atomic operation since we own the queue lock
> + * PREEMPT_RT needs to disable interrupts here for
> + * synchronisation needed in napi_schedule.
> */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> + local_irq_disable();
> +
> if (!__test_and_set_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED, &sd->backlog.state)) {
> if (!rps_ipi_queued(sd))
> ____napi_schedule(sd, &sd->backlog);
> }
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> + local_irq_enable();
> goto enqueue;
I think you can re-jig this a little more - rps_ipi_queued() only return
0 if sd is "local" so maybe we can call __napi_schedule_irqoff()
instead which already has the if () for PREEMPT_RT?
Maybe moving the ____napi_schedule() into rps_ipi_queued() and
renaming it to napi_schedule_backlog() or napi_schedule_rps()
would make the code easier to follow in that case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists