On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:10:01 +0200 Justin Iurman wrote:
> > However, there is my opinion an issue that can occur: between the check on
> > in_softirq() and the call to local_bh_disable(), the task may be scheduled on
> > another CPU. As a result, the check on in_softirq() becomes ineffective because
> > we may end up disabling BH on a CPU that is not the one we just checked (with
> > if (in_softirq()) { ... }).
The context is not affected by migration. The context is fully defined
by the execution stack.
> Hmm, I think it's correct... good catch. I went for this solution to (i)
> avoid useless nested BHs disable calls; and (ii) avoid ending up with a
> spaghetti graph of possible paths with or without BHs disabled (i.e.,
> with single entry points, namely lwtunnel_xmit() and lwtunnel_output()),
> which otherwise makes it hard to maintain the code IMO.
>
> So, if we want to follow what Alexei suggests (see his last response),
> we'd need to disable BHs in both ip_local_out() and ip6_local_out().
> These are the common functions which are closest in depth, and so for
> both lwtunnel_xmit() and lwtunnel_output(). But... at the "cost" of
> disabling BHs even when it may not be required. Indeed, ip_local_out()
> and ip6_local_out() both call dst_output(), which one is usually not
> lwtunnel_output() (and there may not even be a lwtunnel_xmit() to call
> either).
>
> The other solution is to always call local_bh_disable() in both
> lwtunnel_xmit() and lwtunnel_output(), at the cost of disabling BHs when
> they were already. Which was basically -v1 and received a NACK from Alexei.
I thought he nacked preempt_disable()
