From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] net: move xmit_recursion to per-task variable on -RT
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:34:33 +0100
Message-ID: <5698BD29.8090405@stressinduktion.org>
References: <20160113152352.GH29964@linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601131830440.3575@nanos>
 <20160114145007.GC17776@linutronix.de> <56981AE1.20202@stressinduktion.org>
 <1452810004.1223.154.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
 <56982895.6070901@stressinduktion.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601150916180.3575@nanos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601150916180.3575@nanos>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org

On 15.01.2016 09:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> On 14.01.2016 23:20, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 23:02 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>>
>>>> We are just adding a second recursion limit solely to openvswitch which
>>>> has the same problem:
>>>>
>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/566769/
>>>>
>>>> This time also we depend on rcu_read_lock marking the section being
>>>> nonpreemptible. Nice would be a more generic solution here which doesn't
>>>> need to always add something to *current.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that rcu_read_lock() does not imply that preemption is disabled.
>>
>> Exactly, it is conditional on CONFIG_PREEMPT_CPU/CONFIG_PREMPT_COUNT but
>> haven't thought about exactly that in this moment.
>
> Wrong. CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU makes RCU preemptible.
>
> If that is not set then it fiddles with preempt_count when
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y. If CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n then you have a non
> preemptible system anyway.
>
> So you cannot assume that rcu_read_lock() disables preemption.

Sorry for maybe writing it misleading but that is exactly what I wanted 
to say here. Yes, I agree, I didn't really check because of _bh and 
rcu_read_lock. This was a mistake. ;)

I already send out an updated patch with added preemption guards.

Thanks,
Hannes