[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <382d00e5-87af-6a6b-17e2-6640fdd01db5@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 19:53:30 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <will@...nel.org>,
<longman@...hat.com>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <hawk@...nel.org>,
<ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] page_pool: add a lockdep check for recycling in
hardirq
On 2023/7/21 1:37, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
...
> diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
> index a3e12a61d456..3ac760fcdc22 100644
> --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
> +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
> @@ -536,6 +536,8 @@ static void page_pool_return_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
> static bool page_pool_recycle_in_ring(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
> {
> int ret;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_no_hardirq();
Is there any reason not to put it in page_pool_put_defragged_page() to
catch the case with allow_direct being true when page_pool_recycle_in_ring()
may not be called?
> /* BH protection not needed if current is softirq */
> if (in_softirq())
> ret = ptr_ring_produce(&pool->ring, page);
> @@ -642,6 +644,8 @@ void page_pool_put_page_bulk(struct page_pool *pool, void **data,
> int i, bulk_len = 0;
> bool in_softirq;
>
> + lockdep_assert_no_hardirq();
> +
> for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(data[i]);
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists