lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subject[RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce assert_in_softirq()
Date
ieee80211_rx_napi() has a check to ensure that it is invoked in softirq
context / with BH disabled. It is there because it invokes
netif_receive_skb() which has this requirement.
On -RT this check does not work as expected so there is always this
warning.
Tree wide there are two users of this check: ieee80211_rx_napi() and
ieee802154_rx(). This approach introduces assert_in_softirq() which does
the check if lockdep is enabled. This check could then become a nop on
-RT.

As an alternative netif_receive_skb() (or ieee80211_rx_napi() could do
local_bh_disable() / local_bh_enable() unconditionally. The _disable()
part is very cheap. The _enable() part is more expensive because it
includes a function call. We could avoid that jump in the likely case
when BH was already disabled by something like:

static inline void local_bh_enable(void)
{
if (softirq_count() == SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET)
__local_bh_enable_ip(_THIS_IP_, SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET);
else
preempt_count_sub(SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET);
}

Which would make bh_enable() cheaper for everyone.

Sebastian


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-04 19:52    [W:0.054 / U:5.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site