lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08
    On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Francois Romieu wrote:

    > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> :
    > [...]
    > > I can't find the point where the warning is issued, but I think I
    > > found the cause of the problem.
    > >
    > > static void rtl_slow_event_work(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
    > > {
    > > .....
    > > napi_schedule(&tp->napi);
    > > --> __napi_schedule();
    > > --> list_add_tail(&napi->poll_list, &sd->poll_list);
    > > __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);
    > >
    > > This merily sets the softirq bit.
    > >
    > >
    > > So this code is really wrong. It's called from full preemptible
    > > context of the workqueue. And if the next thing is a context switch to
    > > idle then the pending softirq check will trigger.
    >
    > void __napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *n)
    > {
    > unsigned long flags;
    >
    > local_irq_save(flags);
    > ____napi_schedule(&__get_cpu_var(softnet_data), n);
    > local_irq_restore(flags);
    > }
    >
    > Are you saying that this stuff should be considered "preemptible" ?

    Gah, crap. Looked at the wrong ___________underscore level. I _____so
    __love _that.

    Though the problem is, that it is neither called in interrupt context
    nor with bh disabled, so nothing invokes the softirq before it reaches
    idle.

    In hard interrupt context the pending flag is evaluated in irq_exit()
    and the softirqs are invoked from there. If you call that from thread
    context, then a bh_disable/enable pair will make sure that the pending
    softirq is invoked. Did I miss some more ___underscore magic which
    does that ?

    Thanks,

    tglx




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-08 23:21    [W:0.028 / U:0.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site