[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230406074648.4c26a795@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 07:46:48 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: provide macros for commonly copied
lockless queue stop/wake code
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 07:17:09 -0700 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Mightn't preemption or interrupts cause further issues? Or are preemption
> > > and/or interrupts disabled across the relevant sections of code?
> >
> > The code in question is supposed to run in softirq context. So
> > both interrupts and preemption should be disabled.
>
> Agreed, preemption will be enabled in softirq, but interrupts can still
> happen, correct?
Starting the queue only happens from softirq (I hope) and stopping
can happen from any context. So we're risking false-starts again.
I think this puts to bed any hope of making this code safe against
false-starts with just barriers :(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists