On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:39 PM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2021 16:36:16 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
quoted
quoted
@@ -176,8 +202,15 @@ static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
static inline void qdisc_run_end(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
{
write_seqcount_end(&qdisc->running);
- if (qdisc->flags & TCQ_F_NOLOCK)
+ if (qdisc->flags & TCQ_F_NOLOCK) {
spin_unlock(&qdisc->seqlock);
+
+ if (unlikely(test_bit(__QDISC_STATE_MISSED,
+ &qdisc->state))) {
+ clear_bit(__QDISC_STATE_MISSED, &qdisc->state);
We have test_and_clear_bit() which is atomic, test_bit()+clear_bit()
is not.
It doesn't have to be atomic, right? I asked to split the test because
test_and_clear is a locked op on x86, test by itself is not.
It depends on whether you expect the code under the true condition
to run once or multiple times, something like:
if (test_bit()) {
clear_bit();
// this code may run multiple times
}
With the atomic test_and_clear_bit(), it only runs once:
if (test_and_clear_bit()) {
// this code runs once
}
This is why __netif_schedule() uses test_and_set_bit() instead of
test_bit()+set_bit().
Thanks.