From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:52:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:52:38 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:28574 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:52:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020823.154114.99162408.davem@redhat.com> To: haveblue@us.ibm.com Cc: manand@us.ibm.com, bcrl@redhat.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, bhartner@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, lse-tech-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: (RFC): SKB Initialization From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3D666531.4020909@us.ibm.com> References: <3D666531.4020909@us.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Dave Hansen Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:39:13 -0700 Where are interrupts disabled? I just went through a set of kernprof data and traced up the call graph. In the most common __kfree_skb case, I do not believe that it has interupts disabled. I could be wrong, but I didn't see it. That's completely right. interrupts should never be disabled when __kfree_skb is executed. It used to be possible when we allowed it to be invoked from interrupt handlers, but that is illegal and we have kfree_skb_irq which just reschedules the actual __kfree_skb to a software interrupt. So I agree with you, Mala's claims seem totally bogus and not well founded at all.