From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
<martin.varghese@nokia.com>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
<pshelar@ovn.org>, <fw@strlen.de>, <gnault@redhat.com>,
<steffen.klassert@secunet.com>, <kyk.segfault@gmail.com>,
<viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
<edumazet@google.com>, <saeed@kernel.org>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: add in_softirq() debug checking in napi_consume_skb()
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:14:32 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5b04ad33-1611-8d7b-8fec-4269c01ecab3@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201031153824.7ae83b90@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
On 2020/11/1 6:38, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:34:48 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> The current semantic for napi_consume_skb() is that caller need
>> to provide non-zero budget when calling from NAPI context, and
>> breaking this semantic will cause hard to debug problem, because
>> _kfree_skb_defer() need to run in atomic context in order to push
>> the skb to the particular cpu' napi_alloc_cache atomically.
>>
>> So add a in_softirq() debug checking in napi_consume_skb() to catch
>> this kind of error.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
>
>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
>> index 1ba8f01..1834007 100644
>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
>> @@ -897,6 +897,10 @@ void napi_consume_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, int budget)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> + DEBUG_NET_WARN(!in_softirq(),
>> + "%s is called with non-zero budget outside softirq context.\n",
>> + __func__);
>
> Can't we use lockdep instead of defining our own knobs?
From the first look, using the below seems better than defining our
own knobs, because there is similar lockdep_assert_in_irq() checking
already and lockdep_assert_in_*() is NULL-OP when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
is not defined.
>
> Like this maybe?
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index f5594879175a..5253a167d00c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -594,6 +594,14 @@ do { \
> this_cpu_read(hardirqs_enabled))); \
> } while (0)
>
> +#define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() \
> +do { \
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(__lockdep_enabled && \
> + (softirq_count() == 0 || \
> + this_cpu_read(hardirq_context))); \
Using in_softirq() seems more obvious then using softirq_count()?
And there is below comment above avoiding the using of in_softirq(), maybe
that is why you use softirq_count() directly here?
"softirq_count() == 0" still mean we are not in the SoftIRQ context and
BH is not disabled. right? Perhap lockdep_assert_in_softirq_or_bh_disabled()
is more obvious?
/*
* Are we doing bottom half or hardware interrupt processing?
*
* in_irq() - We're in (hard) IRQ context
* in_softirq() - We have BH disabled, or are processing softirqs
* in_interrupt() - We're in NMI,IRQ,SoftIRQ context or have BH disabled
* in_serving_softirq() - We're in softirq context
* in_nmi() - We're in NMI context
* in_task() - We're in task context
*
* Note: due to the BH disabled confusion: in_softirq(),in_interrupt() really
* should not be used in new code.
*/
Also, is there any particular reason we do the "this_cpu_read(hardirq_context)"
checking?
Thanks.
> +} while (0)
>
>
>
>> if (!skb_unref(skb))
>> return;
>>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-02 3:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-29 11:34 [PATCH net-next] net: add in_softirq() debug checking in napi_consume_skb() Yunsheng Lin
2020-10-31 22:38 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-02 3:14 ` Yunsheng Lin [this message]
2020-11-02 19:41 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-18 1:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2020-11-18 15:43 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-18 15:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-18 16:26 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-19 9:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2020-11-19 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-19 12:29 ` Yunsheng Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5b04ad33-1611-8d7b-8fec-4269c01ecab3@huawei.com \
--to=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kyk.segfault@gmail.com \
--cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=martin.varghese@nokia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pshelar@ovn.org \
--cc=saeed@kernel.org \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).