Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesper Dangaard Brouer <> | Date | Mon, 22 May 2023 13:08:20 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] page_pool: fix inconsistency for page_pool_ring_[un]lock() |
| |
On 22/05/2023 05.17, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > page_pool_ring_[un]lock() use in_softirq() to decide which > spin lock variant to use, and when they are called in the > context with in_softirq() being false, spin_lock_bh() is > called in page_pool_ring_lock() while spin_unlock() is > called in page_pool_ring_unlock(), because spin_lock_bh() > has disabled the softirq in page_pool_ring_lock(), which > causes inconsistency for spin lock pair calling. > > This patch fixes it by returning in_softirq state from > page_pool_producer_lock(), and use it to decide which > spin lock variant to use in page_pool_producer_unlock(). > > As pool->ring has both producer and consumer lock, so > rename it to page_pool_producer_[un]lock() to reflect > the actual usage. Also move them to page_pool.c as they > are only used there, and remove the 'inline' as the > compiler may have better idea to do inlining or not. > > Fixes: 7886244736a4 ("net: page_pool: Add bulk support for ptr_ring") > Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin<linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Thanks for spotting and fixing this! :-)
Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
| |