On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:47:53 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Oh, I really thought list_for_each_entry_rcu() was only checking standard
> > rcu.
> >
> > I might have been confused because we do have hlist_for_each_entry_rcu_bh()
> > helper.
> >
> > Anyway, when looking at the patch I was not at
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:43:22 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 8/27/20 8:10 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 00:25:31 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On 8/26/20 12:40 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>> To ensure memory ordering is correct we need to use RCU accessors.
> >>
> >>> +
On 8/27/20 8:10 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 00:25:31 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On 8/26/20 12:40 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> To ensure memory ordering is correct we need to use RCU accessors.
>>
>>> + set_bit(NAPI_STATE_NPSVC, &napi->state);
>>> + list_add_rcu(&napi->
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 00:25:31 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 8/26/20 12:40 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > To ensure memory ordering is correct we need to use RCU accessors.
>
> > + set_bit(NAPI_STATE_NPSVC, &napi->state);
> > + list_add_rcu(&napi->dev_list, &dev->napi_list);
>
> >
> > - list
On 8/26/20 12:40 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> napi_disable() makes sure to set the NAPI_STATE_NPSVC bit to prevent
> netpoll from accessing rings before init is complete. However, the
> same is not done for fresh napi instances in netif_napi_add(),
> even though we expect NAPI instances to be add
