Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Yunsheng Lin <> | Subject | [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] lockdep: Introduce in_softirq lockdep assert | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:49:28 +0800 |
| |
The current semantic for napi_consume_skb() is that caller need to provide non-zero budget when calling from NAPI context, and breaking this semantic will cause hard to debug problem, because _kfree_skb_defer() need to run in atomic context in order to push the skb to the particular cpu' napi_alloc_cache atomically.
So add the lockdep_assert_in_softirq() to assert when the running context is not in_softirq, in_softirq means softirq is serving or BH is disabled, which has a ambiguous semantics due to the BH disabled confusion, so add a comment to emphasize that.
And the softirq context can be interrupted by hard IRQ or NMI context, lockdep_assert_in_softirq() need to assert about hard IRQ or NMI context too.
Suggested-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> --- V3: add comment to emphasize the ambiguous semantics. --- include/linux/lockdep.h | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h index f559487..8d60f46 100644 --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h @@ -594,6 +594,13 @@ do { \ this_cpu_read(hardirqs_enabled))); \ } while (0) +/* Much like in_softirq() - semantics are ambiguous, use carefully. */ +#define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() \ +do { \ + WARN_ON_ONCE(__lockdep_enabled && \ + (!in_softirq() || in_irq() || in_nmi())); \ +} while (0) + #else # define might_lock(lock) do { } while (0) # define might_lock_read(lock) do { } while (0) @@ -605,6 +612,7 @@ do { \ # define lockdep_assert_preemption_enabled() do { } while (0) # define lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled() do { } while (0) +# define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() do { } while (0) #endif #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING -- 2.8.1
| |