[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61d558ac-8aa3-8dd4-cd18-e9bdd42650a7@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:01:18 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <brouer@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: avoid irqsave in skb_defer_free_flush
On 1/18/2023 11:19 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> On 17/01/2023 20.29, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>
>> On 1/17/2023 4:29 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>> The spin_lock irqsave/restore API variant in skb_defer_free_flush can
>>> be replaced with the faster spin_lock irq variant, which doesn't need
>>> to read and restore the CPU flags.
>>>
>>> Using the unconditional irq "disable/enable" API variant is safe,
>>> because the skb_defer_free_flush() function is only called during
>>> NAPI-RX processing in net_rx_action(), where it is known the IRQs
>>> are enabled.
>>>
>>
>> Did you mean disabled here? If IRQs are enabled that would mean the
>> interrupt could be triggered and we would need to irqsave, no?
>
> I do mean 'enabled' in the text here.
>
> As you can see in net_rx_action() we are allowed to perform code like:
>
> local_irq_disable();
> list_splice_init(&sd->poll_list, &list);
> local_irq_enable();
>
> Disabling local IRQ without saving 'flags' and unconditionally enabling
> local IRQs again. Thus, in skb_defer_free_flush() we can do the same,
> without saving 'flags'. Hope it makes it more clear.
>
Ahh, that makes sense.
In that case, no further nits and:
Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists