Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: dev: Makes sure netif_rx() can be invoked in any context.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:00 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dave suggested a while ago (eleven years by now) "Let's make netif_rx()
> work in all contexts and get rid of netif_rx_ni()". Eric agreed and
> pointed out that modern devices should use netif_receive_skb() to avoid
> the overhead.
> In the meantime someone added another variant, netif_rx_any_context(),
> which behaves as suggested.
>
> netif_rx() must be invoked with disabled bottom halves to ensure that
> pending softirqs, which were raised within the function, are handled.
> netif_rx_ni() can be invoked only from process context (bottom halves
> must be enabled) because the function handles pending softirqs without
> checking if bottom halves were disabled or not.
> netif_rx_any_context() invokes on the former functions by checking
> in_interrupts().
>
> netif_rx() could be taught to handle both cases (disabled and enabled
> bottom halves) by simply disabling bottom halves while invoking
> netif_rx_internal(). The local_bh_enable() invocation will then invoke
> pending softirqs only if the BH-disable counter drops to zero.
>
> Eric is concerned about the overhead of BH-disable+enable especially in
> regard to the loopback driver. As critical as this driver is, it will
> receive a shortcut to avoid the additional overhead which is not needed.
>
> Add a local_bh_disable() section in netif_rx() to ensure softirqs are
> handled if needed. Provide the internal bits as __netif_rx() which can
> be used by the loopback driver. This function is not exported so it
> can't be used by modules.
> Make netif_rx_ni() and netif_rx_any_context() invoke netif_rx() so they
> can be removed once they are no more users left.
>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20100415.020246.218622820.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>

Nice, thanks !

Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux