On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:41:09 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2020-08-14 18:54:21 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > When merging 5.4.55 into 5.4-rt I hit the following conflict: > … > > > > Where we are doing something slightly different. Placing the skb on the > > sd->tofree_queue and raising NET_RX_SOFTIQ instead. > > > > Now that the vanilla stable 5.4 kernel doesn't call kfree_skb() from > > irqs_disabled, can I safely revert this entire change? > > Not if you mean dropping skbufhead-raw-lock.patch. Yeah, I realized I worded that incorrectly. No, I meant only reverting the portion of that patch I showed: @@ -5229,7 +5234,7 @@ static void flush_backlog(struct work_struct *work) skb_queue_walk_safe(&sd->input_pkt_queue, skb, tmp) { if (skb->dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) { __skb_unlink(skb, &sd->input_pkt_queue); - kfree_skb(skb); + __skb_queue_tail(&sd->tofree_queue, skb); input_queue_head_incr(sd); } } @@ -5239,11 +5244,14 @@ static void flush_backlog(struct work_struct *work) skb_queue_walk_safe(&sd->process_queue, skb, tmp) { if (skb->dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) { __skb_unlink(skb, &sd->process_queue); - kfree_skb(skb); + __skb_queue_tail(&sd->tofree_queue, skb); input_queue_head_incr(sd); } } + if (!skb_queue_empty(&sd->tofree_queue)) + raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ); local_bh_enable(); + } > > We can drop `tofree_queue' and everything related to it. We need to > keep the `raw_lock' and the `rps_lock()' hunks for > `sd->input_pkt_queue'. The other queue, `sd->process_queue', is > protected by local_bh_disable() so these hunks can be dropped in the > more recent RT versions with the re-written softirq code > (v5.0.19-rt10+). > > > Is it safe to call kfree_skb() from local_bh_disable()? > > of course it is. Then all looks good. Thanks, I'll push this out to the repos today. -- Steve