mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Carsten Emde <C.Emde@osadl.org>, John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@kernel.org>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>
Subject: Question on 5.4.55 merge into 5.4-rt
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 18:54:21 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200814185421.74b1ddc8@oasis.local.home> (raw)


When merging 5.4.55 into 5.4-rt I hit the following conflict:

static void flush_backlog(struct work_struct *work)
{
	struct sk_buff *skb, *tmp;
	struct softnet_data *sd;

	local_bh_disable();
	sd = this_cpu_ptr(&softnet_data);

	local_irq_disable();
	rps_lock(sd);
	skb_queue_walk_safe(&sd->input_pkt_queue, skb, tmp) {
		if (skb->dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) {
			__skb_unlink(skb, &sd->input_pkt_queue);
<<<<<<< HEAD
			__skb_queue_tail(&sd->tofree_queue, skb);
=======
			dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb);
>>>>>>> v5.4.55
			input_queue_head_incr(sd);
		}
	}

The diff of 5.4.54 -> 5.4.55 of this code is:

--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -5229,7 +5229,7 @@ static void flush_backlog(struct work_struct *work)
        skb_queue_walk_safe(&sd->input_pkt_queue, skb, tmp) {
                if (skb->dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) {
                        __skb_unlink(skb, &sd->input_pkt_queue);
-                       kfree_skb(skb);
+                       dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb);
                        input_queue_head_incr(sd);
                }
        }


From upstream commit:

7df5cb75cfb8a ("dev: Defer free of skbs in flush_backlog")

According to that commit, it looks like kfree_skb() shouldn't be called
with irqs disabled (yeah for RT!). It now calls dev_kfree_skb_irq()
which puts the skb on the softnet_data.completion_queue, and raises the
NET_TX_SOFTIRQ to do the freeing.


This is similar to what v5.4-rt does, which a diff of 5.4.54 -> v5.4-rt:

@@ -5229,7 +5234,7 @@ static void flush_backlog(struct work_struct *work)
        skb_queue_walk_safe(&sd->input_pkt_queue, skb, tmp) {
                if (skb->dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) {
                        __skb_unlink(skb, &sd->input_pkt_queue);
-                       kfree_skb(skb);
+                       __skb_queue_tail(&sd->tofree_queue, skb);
                        input_queue_head_incr(sd);
                }
        }
@@ -5239,11 +5244,14 @@ static void flush_backlog(struct work_struct *work)
        skb_queue_walk_safe(&sd->process_queue, skb, tmp) {
                if (skb->dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) {
                        __skb_unlink(skb, &sd->process_queue);
-                       kfree_skb(skb);
+                       __skb_queue_tail(&sd->tofree_queue, skb);
                        input_queue_head_incr(sd);
                }
        }
+       if (!skb_queue_empty(&sd->tofree_queue))
+               raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);
        local_bh_enable();
+
 }


Where we are doing something slightly different. Placing the skb on the
sd->tofree_queue and raising NET_RX_SOFTIQ instead.

Now that the vanilla stable 5.4 kernel doesn't call kfree_skb() from
irqs_disabled, can I safely revert this entire change?

Is it safe to call kfree_skb() from local_bh_disable()?

I'm assuming it is, but just want to clarify. I'll be continuing
merging latest stable (with this revert), but please yell if you think
it will break?

Thanks!

-- Steve

             reply	other threads:[~2020-08-14 22:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-14 22:54 Steven Rostedt [this message]
2020-08-17 13:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-08-17 14:56   ` Steven Rostedt

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=20200814185421.74b1ddc8@oasis.local.home \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=C.Emde@osadl.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=srivatsa@csail.mit.edu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wagi@monom.org \
    --cc=zanussi@kernel.org \
    /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®