[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<MWHPR1801MB19184DB2CDE3A83E34099E00D31DA@MWHPR1801MB1918.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 02:49:55 +0000
From: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Geethasowjanya
Akula <gakula@...vell.com>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta
<sbhatta@...vell.com>,
Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
Thomas
Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@...vell.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [EXT] [BUG] Possible unsafe page_pool usage in octeontx2
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 6:25 PM
> To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com>
> Subject: Re: RE: [EXT] [BUG] Possible unsafe page_pool usage in octeontx2
> I would suggest to stay away from the lock-less buffer if not in NAPI and feed
> the pool->ring instead.
As Jacub explained, allow_direct will be false as pp->p.napi is 0.
So there is no lockless addition. I think, we don’t have to fix the page pool alloc() in workqueue issue.
-Ratheesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists