All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Soft IRQs
@ 2008-05-12 12:41 Jamie Iles
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Jamie Iles @ 2008-05-12 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: Jamie Iles

Hi,

I am trying to understand whether it is correct behaviour for soft IRQs 
to be executed when interrupts with disabled. In particular, if I have 
some code that does:

    spin_lock_t mylock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
    unsigned long flags;
    spin_lock_irqsave( &mylock, flags );
   
    ...
   
    spin_lock_irqrestore( &mylock, flags );

Can soft IRQs run in the critical section above? I have a problem where 
'local_bh_enable_ip()' is being called as a result of 'dev_kfree_skb()' 
and a NET_RX_SOFTIRQ is being raised when I expect interrupts to be 
disabled.

'local_bh_enable()' only uses the 'in_irq()' macro to check whether we 
should do 'do_softirq()' and it also only checks we do not have the 
softirq field of 'preempt_count' non-zero before enabling soft IRQs.

I can see that if I was to replace 'spin_lock_irqsave()' with 
'spin_lock_bh()' then the softirq field of 'preempt_count' would be 
incremented and prevent soft IRQs until the lock was released. Should 
'spin_lock_irqsave()' also disable soft interrupts?

Thanks,

Jamie

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2008-05-12 13:37 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-05-12 12:41 Soft IRQs Jamie Iles

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.