From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>,
Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce assert_in_softirq()
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 19:51:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180504175144.12179-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> (raw)
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
next reply other threads:[~2018-05-04 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-04 17:51 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2018-05-04 17:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Add a assert_in_softirq() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-05-04 17:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] net: mac808211: mac802154: use lockdep_assert_in_softirq() instead own warning Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-05-04 18:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 18:45 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-05-04 18:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 19:07 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-05-04 20:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05 7:06 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180504175144.12179-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=alex.aring@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stefan@osg.samsung.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®