Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:06:26 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
        linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, linux-cachefs@redhat.com,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        David Wysochanski <dwysocha@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/33] netfs: Use in_interrupt() not in_softirq()
Message-ID: <20210216090626.kqnk726i6f77libt@linutronix.de>
References: <161340385320.1303470.2392622971006879777.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1376938.1613429183@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20210216084230.GA23669@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210216084230.GA23669@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-02-16 09:42:30 [+0100], Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:46:23PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > The in_softirq() in netfs_rreq_terminated() works fine for the cache being
> > on a normal disk, as the completion handlers may get called in softirq
> > context, but for an NVMe drive, the completion handler may get called in
> > IRQ context.
> > 
> > Fix to use in_interrupt() instead of in_softirq() throughout the read
> > helpers, particularly when deciding whether to punt code that might sleep
> > off to a worker thread.
> 
> We must not use either check, as they all are unreliable especially
> for PREEMPT-RT.

Yes, please. I try to cleanup the users one by one
    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200914204209.256266093@linutronix.de/
    https://lore.kernel.org/amd-gfx/20210209124439.408140-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de/

Sebastian