Re: [PATCH] net: Adjust softirq raising in __napi_schedule

Johannes Berg
2009-10-21T21:25:41Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2238 bytes --]

On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:19 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:46:40PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> ...
> > I have tested your patch and I can confirm that it fixes the messages.
> > I have not noticed any ill effects.
>
> OK. So, in any case, here is this next variant/proposal.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek P.
> ------------------------>
> net: Adjust softirq raising in __napi_schedule
>
> This patch changes __raise_softirq_irqoff() to raise_softirq_irqoff()
> in __napi_schedule() to enable proper softirq scheduling from process
> context. The main intent is to let use netif_rx() universally, and
> make netif_rx_ni() redundant.
>
> Currently using netif_rx() instead of netif_rx_ni() triggers:
> "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08" warnings, but additional cost of one
> "if" on the fast path doesn't seem to justify maintaining it
> separately.
>
> This patch is based on the analysis, suggestions and the original
> patch for mac80211 by: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
>
> Another patch calling netif_rx variants conditionally was done by:
> Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@hartkopp.net>
>
> Reported-by: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
> Reported-by: Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@hartkopp.net>
> Reported-by: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
> Diagnosed-by: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
> Tested-by: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> net/core/dev.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index 28b0b9e..7fc4009 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ void __napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *n)
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> list_add_tail(&n->poll_list, &__get_cpu_var(softnet_data).poll_list);
> - __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);
> + raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);

This still doesn't make any sense.

There may or may not be a lot of code that assumes that everything else
is run with other tasklets disabled, and that it cannot be interrupted
by a tasklet and thus create a race.

Can you prove that is not the case, across the entire networking layer?

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]