lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RCU stall in af_unix.c, should use spin_lock_irqsave?
Dear Eric Dumazet,

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:04:34 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> > So, the question is: is this patch the correct solution (but then other
> > usage of spin_lock in af_unix.c might also need fixing) ? Or is the
> > network driver at fault?
> >
> > Thanks for your input,
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Locks in af_unix do not need to mask irqs. Ever.
>
> skb_queue_tail() uses an irqsave variant because its a generic function,
> and _some_ skb list might be manipulated from hard irq handlers in pre
> NAPI drivers. But af_unix does not have an interrupt handler that could
> potentially try to lock sk_receive_queue.lock

Ok. So it's actually safe to mix spin_lock() and spin_lock_irqsave() on
the same lock, if you know that this lock will never ever be taken in
an interrupt context?

> mvpp2 is seriously brain damaged : on_each_cpu() cannot be used from
> a bottom half handler.

That's what I thought. Back to the drawing board then, to fix mvpp2.

Do you think there is a place where we can write down those
assumptions? It isn't easy to spot whether on_each_cpu() is safe to use
in a bottom half or not.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your quick feedback!

Best regards,

Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-21 12:41    [W:0.049 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site