Messages in this thread | | | From | Ilias Apalodimas <> | Date | Mon, 22 May 2023 14:45:17 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] page_pool: fix inconsistency for page_pool_ring_[un]lock() |
| |
Thanks Yunsheng
On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 14:08, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 22/05/2023 05.17, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > > page_pool_ring_[un]lock() use in_softirq() to decide which > > spin lock variant to use, and when they are called in the > > context with in_softirq() being false, spin_lock_bh() is > > called in page_pool_ring_lock() while spin_unlock() is > > called in page_pool_ring_unlock(), because spin_lock_bh() > > has disabled the softirq in page_pool_ring_lock(), which > > causes inconsistency for spin lock pair calling. > > > > This patch fixes it by returning in_softirq state from > > page_pool_producer_lock(), and use it to decide which > > spin lock variant to use in page_pool_producer_unlock(). > > > > As pool->ring has both producer and consumer lock, so > > rename it to page_pool_producer_[un]lock() to reflect > > the actual usage. Also move them to page_pool.c as they > > are only used there, and remove the 'inline' as the > > compiler may have better idea to do inlining or not. > > > > Fixes: 7886244736a4 ("net: page_pool: Add bulk support for ptr_ring") > > Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin<linyunsheng@huawei.com> > > Thanks for spotting and fixing this! :-) > > Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> >
Acked-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
| |