* 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox