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 <eduma...@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsh...@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? 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))); \ +} while (0) > if (!skb_unref(skb)) > return; >