You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
>> + /* doorbell */
>> + .irq_handler = byt_irq_handler,
>> + .irq_thread = byt_irq_thread,
>> +
> What is the reason for having irq_handler/irq_thread functions inside the
> snd_sof_dsp_ops structure?
>
> These functions are never used outside via sdev->ops pointer.
Good point indeed, thanks for raising it. We were in the middle of
tagging which ops are required/optional (feedback from Mark) but we
started from the core and should have looked at the structure definition.
Most drivers are "self-contained" and can reference the irq_thread and
irq_handler directly.
The exception where the abstraction is used is internal to the HDaudio
stuff:
intel/hda.c: ret = request_threaded_irq(sdev->ipc_irq,
hda_dsp_ipc_irq_handler,
intel/hda.c: sof_ops(sdev)->irq_thread, IRQF_SHARED,
That's useful since there a minor variations between hardware
generations and you want to hide the hardware-specific parts.
But as you point out, it's a "private" use of ops callbacks, the core
doesn't touch this.
I have no explanation other than legacy/historical reasons or a shortcut
to make one's life easier during development. Liam and Keyon might know?
We could try and move this to a more "private" structure, the
"chip_info" part might be more suitable for this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
bpf_sk_reuseport_detach() calls __rcu_dereference_sk_user_data_with_flags()
to obtain the value of sk->sk_user_data, but that function is only usable
if the RCU read lock is held, and neither that function nor any of its
callers hold it.
Fix this by adding a new helper, __locked_read_sk_user_data_with_flags()
that checks to see if sk->sk_callback_lock() is held and use that here
instead.
Alternatively, making __rcu_dereference_sk_user_data_with_flags() use
rcu_dereference_checked() might suffice.
Without this, the following warning can be occasionally observed:
=============================
WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
6.0.0-rc1-build2+ thesofproject#563 Not tainted
-----------------------------
include/net/sock.h:592 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
other info that might help us debug this:
rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
5 locks held by locktest/29873:
#0: ffff88812734b550 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __sock_release+0x77/0x121
#1: ffff88812f5621b0 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: tcp_close+0x1c/0x70
#2: ffff88810312f5c8 (&h->lhash2[i].lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: inet_unhash+0x76/0x1c0
#3: ffffffff83768bb8 (reuseport_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: reuseport_detach_sock+0x18/0xdd
#4: ffff88812f562438 (clock-AF_INET){++..}-{2:2}, at: bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x24/0xa4
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 29873 Comm: locktest Not tainted 6.0.0-rc1-build2+ thesofproject#563
Hardware name: ASUS All Series/H97-PLUS, BIOS 2306 10/09/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x4c/0x5f
bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x6d/0xa4
reuseport_detach_sock+0x75/0xdd
inet_unhash+0xa5/0x1c0
tcp_set_state+0x169/0x20f
? lockdep_sock_is_held+0x3a/0x3a
? __lock_release.isra.0+0x13e/0x220
? reacquire_held_locks+0x1bb/0x1bb
? hlock_class+0x31/0x96
? mark_lock+0x9e/0x1af
__tcp_close+0x50/0x4b6
tcp_close+0x28/0x70
inet_release+0x8e/0xa7
__sock_release+0x95/0x121
sock_close+0x14/0x17
__fput+0x20f/0x36a
task_work_run+0xa3/0xcc
exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x9c/0x14d
syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x18/0x44
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
Fixes: cf8c1e9 ("net: refactor bpf_sk_reuseport_detach()")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/166064248071.3502205.10036394558814861778.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Copy/paste from emails:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: