On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 04:25:06AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 03:38:42AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 04:53:25AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > After the commit bdacf3e34945 ("net: Use nested-BH locking for
> > > napi_alloc_cache.") was merged, the following warning began to appear:
> > >
> > > WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 1 at net/core/skbuff.c:1451 napi_skb_cache_put+0x82/0x4b0
> > >
> > > __warn+0x12f/0x340
> > > napi_skb_cache_put+0x82/0x4b0
> > > napi_skb_cache_put+0x82/0x4b0
> > > report_bug+0x165/0x370
> > > handle_bug+0x3d/0x80
> > > exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x50
> > > asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
> > > __free_old_xmit+0x1c8/0x510
> > > napi_skb_cache_put+0x82/0x4b0
> > > __free_old_xmit+0x1c8/0x510
> > > __free_old_xmit+0x1c8/0x510
> > > __pfx___free_old_xmit+0x10/0x10
> > >
> > > The issue arises because virtio is assuming it's running in NAPI context
> > > even when it's not, such as in the netpoll case.
> > >
> > > To resolve this, modify virtnet_poll_tx() to only set NAPI when budget
> > > is available. Same for virtnet_poll_cleantx(), which always assumed that
> > > it was in a NAPI context.
> > >
> > > Fixes: df133f3f9625 ("virtio_net: bulk free tx skbs")
> > > Suggested-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > though I'm not sure I understand the connection with bdacf3e34945.
>
> The warning above appeared after bdacf3e34945 landed.
Hi Breno,
Thanks for fixing this!
I think the confusion is around the fact that the commit on Fixes
(df133f3f9625) tag is different from the commit in the commit message
(bdacf3e34945).
Please help me check if the following is correct:
###
Any tree which includes df133f3f9625 ("virtio_net: bulk free tx skbs")
should also include your patch, since it fixes stuff in there.
The fact that the warning was only made visible in
bdacf3e34945 ("net: Use nested-BH locking for napi_alloc_cache.")
does not change the fact that it was already present before.
Also, having bdacf3e34945 is not necessary for the backport, since
it only made the bug visible.
###
Are above statements right?
It's important to make it clear since this helps the backporting process.
Thanks!
Leo
