Commit 8b5536ad authored by Yunsheng Lin's avatar Yunsheng Lin Committed by Jakub Kicinski

lockdep: Introduce in_softirq lockdep assert

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 the lockdep_assert_in_softirq() to assert when the running
context is not in_softirq, in_softirq means softirq is serving or
BH is disabled, which has a ambiguous semantics due to the BH
disabled confusion, so add a comment to emphasize that.

And the softirq context can be interrupted by hard IRQ or NMI
context, lockdep_assert_in_softirq() need to assert about hard
IRQ or NMI context too.
Suggested-by: default avatarJakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarYunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
parent b5094a3b
......@@ -594,6 +594,16 @@ do { \
this_cpu_read(hardirqs_enabled))); \
} while (0)
/*
* Acceptable for protecting per-CPU resources accessed from BH.
* Much like in_softirq() - semantics are ambiguous, use carefully.
*/
#define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() \
do { \
WARN_ON_ONCE(__lockdep_enabled && \
(!in_softirq() || in_irq() || in_nmi())); \
} while (0)
#else
# define might_lock(lock) do { } while (0)
# define might_lock_read(lock) do { } while (0)
......@@ -605,6 +615,7 @@ do { \
# define lockdep_assert_preemption_enabled() do { } while (0)
# define lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled() do { } while (0)
# define lockdep_assert_in_softirq() do { } while (0)
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment