| Message ID | 20240327160314.9982-7-apais@linux.microsoft.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Convert Tasklets to BH Workqueues | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch, async |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 04:03:11PM +0000, Allen Pais wrote: > The only generic interface to execute asynchronously in the BH context is > tasklet; however, it's marked deprecated and has some design flaws. To > replace tasklets, BH workqueue support was recently added. A BH workqueue > behaves similarly to regular workqueues except that the queued work items > are executed in the BH context. > > This patch converts drivers/infiniband/* from tasklet to BH workqueue. I think you mean drivers/char/ipmi/* here. I believe that work queues items are execute single-threaded for a work queue, so this should be good. I need to test this, though. It may be that an IPMI device can have its own work queue; it may not be important to run it in bh context. -corey > > Based on the work done by Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > Branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-6.10 > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 30 ++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > index b0eedc4595b3..fce2a2dbdc82 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > @@ -36,12 +36,13 @@ > #include <linux/nospec.h> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h> > #include <linux/delay.h> > +#include <linux/workqueue.h> > > #define IPMI_DRIVER_VERSION "39.2" > > static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); > static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); > +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t); > static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > @@ -498,13 +499,13 @@ struct ipmi_smi { > /* > * Messages queued for delivery. If delivery fails (out of memory > * for instance), They will stay in here to be processed later in a > - * periodic timer interrupt. The tasklet is for handling received > + * periodic timer interrupt. The work is for handling received > * messages directly from the handler. > */ > spinlock_t waiting_rcv_msgs_lock; > struct list_head waiting_rcv_msgs; > atomic_t watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver; > - struct tasklet_struct recv_tasklet; > + struct work_struct recv_work; > > spinlock_t xmit_msgs_lock; > struct list_head xmit_msgs; > @@ -704,7 +705,7 @@ static void clean_up_interface_data(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > struct cmd_rcvr *rcvr, *rcvr2; > struct list_head list; > > - tasklet_kill(&intf->recv_tasklet); > + cancel_work_sync(&intf->recv_work); > > free_smi_msg_list(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > free_recv_msg_list(&intf->waiting_events); > @@ -1319,7 +1320,7 @@ static void free_user(struct kref *ref) > { > struct ipmi_user *user = container_of(ref, struct ipmi_user, refcount); > > - /* SRCU cleanup must happen in task context. */ > + /* SRCU cleanup must happen in work context. */ > queue_work(remove_work_wq, &user->remove_work); > } > > @@ -3605,8 +3606,7 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, > intf->curr_seq = 0; > spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > - tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, > - smi_recv_tasklet); > + INIT_WORK(&intf->recv_work, smi_recv_work); > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); > spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); > @@ -4779,7 +4779,7 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > * To preserve message order, quit if we > * can't handle a message. Add the message > * back at the head, this is safe because this > - * tasklet is the only thing that pulls the > + * work is the only thing that pulls the > * messages. > */ > list_add(&smi_msg->link, &intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > @@ -4812,10 +4812,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > } > } > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) > +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t) > { > unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ > - struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); > + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_work(intf, t, recv_work); > int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; > struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; > > @@ -4866,7 +4866,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > /* > * To preserve message order, we keep a queue and deliver from > - * a tasklet. > + * a work. > */ > if (!run_to_completion) > spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock, flags); > @@ -4887,9 +4887,9 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); > > if (run_to_completion) > - smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); > + smi_recv_work(&intf->recv_work); > else > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_msg_received); > > @@ -4899,7 +4899,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > return; > > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 1); > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout); > > @@ -5068,7 +5068,7 @@ static bool ipmi_timeout_handler(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > flags); > } > > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > > return need_timer; > } > -- > 2.17.1 > >
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:05 AM Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 04:03:11PM +0000, Allen Pais wrote: > > The only generic interface to execute asynchronously in the BH context is > > tasklet; however, it's marked deprecated and has some design flaws. To > > replace tasklets, BH workqueue support was recently added. A BH workqueue > > behaves similarly to regular workqueues except that the queued work items > > are executed in the BH context. > > > > This patch converts drivers/infiniband/* from tasklet to BH workqueue. > > I think you mean drivers/char/ipmi/* here. My apologies, my scripts messed up the commit messages for this series. Will have it fixed in v2. > > I believe that work queues items are execute single-threaded for a work > queue, so this should be good. I need to test this, though. It may be > that an IPMI device can have its own work queue; it may not be important > to run it in bh context. Fair point. Could you please let me know once you have had a chance to test these changes. Meanwhile, I will work on RFC wherein IPMI will have its own workqueue. Thanks for taking time out to review. - Allen > > -corey > > > > > Based on the work done by Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > > Branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-6.10 > > > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 30 ++++++++++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > index b0eedc4595b3..fce2a2dbdc82 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > @@ -36,12 +36,13 @@ > > #include <linux/nospec.h> > > #include <linux/vmalloc.h> > > #include <linux/delay.h> > > +#include <linux/workqueue.h> > > > > #define IPMI_DRIVER_VERSION "39.2" > > > > static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); > > static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); > > +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t); > > static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > @@ -498,13 +499,13 @@ struct ipmi_smi { > > /* > > * Messages queued for delivery. If delivery fails (out of memory > > * for instance), They will stay in here to be processed later in a > > - * periodic timer interrupt. The tasklet is for handling received > > + * periodic timer interrupt. The work is for handling received > > * messages directly from the handler. > > */ > > spinlock_t waiting_rcv_msgs_lock; > > struct list_head waiting_rcv_msgs; > > atomic_t watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver; > > - struct tasklet_struct recv_tasklet; > > + struct work_struct recv_work; > > > > spinlock_t xmit_msgs_lock; > > struct list_head xmit_msgs; > > @@ -704,7 +705,7 @@ static void clean_up_interface_data(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > struct cmd_rcvr *rcvr, *rcvr2; > > struct list_head list; > > > > - tasklet_kill(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > + cancel_work_sync(&intf->recv_work); > > > > free_smi_msg_list(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > free_recv_msg_list(&intf->waiting_events); > > @@ -1319,7 +1320,7 @@ static void free_user(struct kref *ref) > > { > > struct ipmi_user *user = container_of(ref, struct ipmi_user, refcount); > > > > - /* SRCU cleanup must happen in task context. */ > > + /* SRCU cleanup must happen in work context. */ > > queue_work(remove_work_wq, &user->remove_work); > > } > > > > @@ -3605,8 +3606,7 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, > > intf->curr_seq = 0; > > spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > - tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, > > - smi_recv_tasklet); > > + INIT_WORK(&intf->recv_work, smi_recv_work); > > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); > > spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); > > @@ -4779,7 +4779,7 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > * To preserve message order, quit if we > > * can't handle a message. Add the message > > * back at the head, this is safe because this > > - * tasklet is the only thing that pulls the > > + * work is the only thing that pulls the > > * messages. > > */ > > list_add(&smi_msg->link, &intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > @@ -4812,10 +4812,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > } > > } > > > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) > > +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t) > > { > > unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ > > - struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); > > + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_work(intf, t, recv_work); > > int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; > > struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; > > > > @@ -4866,7 +4866,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > > > /* > > * To preserve message order, we keep a queue and deliver from > > - * a tasklet. > > + * a work. > > */ > > if (!run_to_completion) > > spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock, flags); > > @@ -4887,9 +4887,9 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); > > > > if (run_to_completion) > > - smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > + smi_recv_work(&intf->recv_work); > > else > > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_msg_received); > > > > @@ -4899,7 +4899,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > return; > > > > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 1); > > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout); > > > > @@ -5068,7 +5068,7 @@ static bool ipmi_timeout_handler(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > flags); > > } > > > > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > > > > return need_timer; > > } > > -- > > 2.17.1 > > > > >
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:52:16AM -0700, Allen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:05 AM Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> wrote: > > > > I believe that work queues items are execute single-threaded for a work > > queue, so this should be good. I need to test this, though. It may be > > that an IPMI device can have its own work queue; it may not be important > > to run it in bh context. > > Fair point. Could you please let me know once you have had a chance to test > these changes. Meanwhile, I will work on RFC wherein IPMI will have its own > workqueue. > > Thanks for taking time out to review. After looking and thinking about it a bit, a BH context is still probably the best for this. I have tested this patch under load and various scenarios and it seems to work ok. So: Tested-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> Or I can take this into my tree. -corey > > - Allen > > > > > -corey > > > > > > > > Based on the work done by Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > > > Branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-610 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 30 ++++++++++++++--------------- > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > > index b0eedc4595b3..fce2a2dbdc82 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c > > > @@ -36,12 +36,13 @@ > > > #include <linux/nospec.h> > > > #include <linux/vmalloc.h> > > > #include <linux/delay.h> > > > +#include <linux/workqueue.h> > > > > > > #define IPMI_DRIVER_VERSION "39.2" > > > > > > static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); > > > static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); > > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); > > > +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t); > > > static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > > static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); > > > static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > > @@ -498,13 +499,13 @@ struct ipmi_smi { > > > /* > > > * Messages queued for delivery. If delivery fails (out of memory > > > * for instance), They will stay in here to be processed later in a > > > - * periodic timer interrupt. The tasklet is for handling received > > > + * periodic timer interrupt. The work is for handling received > > > * messages directly from the handler. > > > */ > > > spinlock_t waiting_rcv_msgs_lock; > > > struct list_head waiting_rcv_msgs; > > > atomic_t watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver; > > > - struct tasklet_struct recv_tasklet; > > > + struct work_struct recv_work; > > > > > > spinlock_t xmit_msgs_lock; > > > struct list_head xmit_msgs; > > > @@ -704,7 +705,7 @@ static void clean_up_interface_data(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > > struct cmd_rcvr *rcvr, *rcvr2; > > > struct list_head list; > > > > > > - tasklet_kill(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > > + cancel_work_sync(&intf->recv_work); > > > > > > free_smi_msg_list(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > > free_recv_msg_list(&intf->waiting_events); > > > @@ -1319,7 +1320,7 @@ static void free_user(struct kref *ref) > > > { > > > struct ipmi_user *user = container_of(ref, struct ipmi_user, refcount); > > > > > > - /* SRCU cleanup must happen in task context. */ > > > + /* SRCU cleanup must happen in work context. */ > > > queue_work(remove_work_wq, &user->remove_work); > > > } > > > > > > @@ -3605,8 +3606,7 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, > > > intf->curr_seq = 0; > > > spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > > - tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, > > > - smi_recv_tasklet); > > > + INIT_WORK(&intf->recv_work, smi_recv_work); > > > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); > > > spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); > > > @@ -4779,7 +4779,7 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > > * To preserve message order, quit if we > > > * can't handle a message. Add the message > > > * back at the head, this is safe because this > > > - * tasklet is the only thing that pulls the > > > + * work is the only thing that pulls the > > > * messages. > > > */ > > > list_add(&smi_msg->link, &intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); > > > @@ -4812,10 +4812,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) > > > +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t) > > > { > > > unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ > > > - struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); > > > + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_work(intf, t, recv_work); > > > int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; > > > struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; > > > > > > @@ -4866,7 +4866,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > > > > > /* > > > * To preserve message order, we keep a queue and deliver from > > > - * a tasklet. > > > + * a work. > > > */ > > > if (!run_to_completion) > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock, flags); > > > @@ -4887,9 +4887,9 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); > > > > > > if (run_to_completion) > > > - smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > > + smi_recv_work(&intf->recv_work); > > > else > > > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_msg_received); > > > > > > @@ -4899,7 +4899,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout(struct ipmi_smi *intf) > > > return; > > > > > > atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 1); > > > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout); > > > > > > @@ -5068,7 +5068,7 @@ static bool ipmi_timeout_handler(struct ipmi_smi *intf, > > > flags); > > > } > > > > > > - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); > > > + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); > > > > > > return need_timer; > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > - Allen >
> > > I believe that work queues items are execute single-threaded for a work > > > queue, so this should be good. I need to test this, though. It may be > > > that an IPMI device can have its own work queue; it may not be important > > > to run it in bh context. > > > > Fair point. Could you please let me know once you have had a chance to test > > these changes. Meanwhile, I will work on RFC wherein IPMI will have its own > > workqueue. > > > > Thanks for taking time out to review. > > After looking and thinking about it a bit, a BH context is still > probably the best for this. > > I have tested this patch under load and various scenarios and it seems > to work ok. So: > > Tested-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > > Or I can take this into my tree. > > -corey Thank you very much. I think it should be okay for you to carry it into your tree. - Allen
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:41:22PM -0700, Allen wrote: > > > > I believe that work queues items are execute single-threaded for a work > > > > queue, so this should be good. I need to test this, though. It may be > > > > that an IPMI device can have its own work queue; it may not be important > > > > to run it in bh context. > > > > > > Fair point. Could you please let me know once you have had a chance to test > > > these changes. Meanwhile, I will work on RFC wherein IPMI will have its own > > > workqueue. > > > > > > Thanks for taking time out to review. > > > > After looking and thinking about it a bit, a BH context is still > > probably the best for this. > > > > I have tested this patch under load and various scenarios and it seems > > to work ok. So: > > > > Tested-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > > Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > > > > Or I can take this into my tree. > > > > -corey > > Thank you very much. I think it should be okay for you to carry it into > your tree. Ok, it's in my for-next tree. I fixed the directory reference, and I changed all the comments where you changed "tasklet" to "work" to instead say "workqueue". -corey > > - Allen >
> > > > > > > > Fair point. Could you please let me know once you have had a chance to test > > > > these changes. Meanwhile, I will work on RFC wherein IPMI will have its own > > > > workqueue. > > > > > > > > Thanks for taking time out to review. > > > > > > After looking and thinking about it a bit, a BH context is still > > > probably the best for this. > > > > > > I have tested this patch under load and various scenarios and it seems > > > to work ok. So: > > > > > > Tested-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > > > Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com> > > > > > > Or I can take this into my tree. > > > > > > -corey > > > > Thank you very much. I think it should be okay for you to carry it into > > your tree. > > Ok, it's in my for-next tree. I fixed the directory reference, and I > changed all the comments where you changed "tasklet" to "work" to > instead say "workqueue". > Thank you very much for fixing it. - Allen
diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c index b0eedc4595b3..fce2a2dbdc82 100644 --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c @@ -36,12 +36,13 @@ #include <linux/nospec.h> #include <linux/vmalloc.h> #include <linux/delay.h> +#include <linux/workqueue.h> #define IPMI_DRIVER_VERSION "39.2" static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void); static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void); -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t); +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t); static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf); static void need_waiter(struct ipmi_smi *intf); static int handle_one_recv_msg(struct ipmi_smi *intf, @@ -498,13 +499,13 @@ struct ipmi_smi { /* * Messages queued for delivery. If delivery fails (out of memory * for instance), They will stay in here to be processed later in a - * periodic timer interrupt. The tasklet is for handling received + * periodic timer interrupt. The work is for handling received * messages directly from the handler. */ spinlock_t waiting_rcv_msgs_lock; struct list_head waiting_rcv_msgs; atomic_t watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver; - struct tasklet_struct recv_tasklet; + struct work_struct recv_work; spinlock_t xmit_msgs_lock; struct list_head xmit_msgs; @@ -704,7 +705,7 @@ static void clean_up_interface_data(struct ipmi_smi *intf) struct cmd_rcvr *rcvr, *rcvr2; struct list_head list; - tasklet_kill(&intf->recv_tasklet); + cancel_work_sync(&intf->recv_work); free_smi_msg_list(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); free_recv_msg_list(&intf->waiting_events); @@ -1319,7 +1320,7 @@ static void free_user(struct kref *ref) { struct ipmi_user *user = container_of(ref, struct ipmi_user, refcount); - /* SRCU cleanup must happen in task context. */ + /* SRCU cleanup must happen in work context. */ queue_work(remove_work_wq, &user->remove_work); } @@ -3605,8 +3606,7 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner, intf->curr_seq = 0; spin_lock_init(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); - tasklet_setup(&intf->recv_tasklet, - smi_recv_tasklet); + INIT_WORK(&intf->recv_work, smi_recv_work); atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 0); spin_lock_init(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intf->xmit_msgs); @@ -4779,7 +4779,7 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) * To preserve message order, quit if we * can't handle a message. Add the message * back at the head, this is safe because this - * tasklet is the only thing that pulls the + * work is the only thing that pulls the * messages. */ list_add(&smi_msg->link, &intf->waiting_rcv_msgs); @@ -4812,10 +4812,10 @@ static void handle_new_recv_msgs(struct ipmi_smi *intf) } } -static void smi_recv_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) +static void smi_recv_work(struct work_struct *t) { unsigned long flags = 0; /* keep us warning-free. */ - struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_tasklet(intf, t, recv_tasklet); + struct ipmi_smi *intf = from_work(intf, t, recv_work); int run_to_completion = intf->run_to_completion; struct ipmi_smi_msg *newmsg = NULL; @@ -4866,7 +4866,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, /* * To preserve message order, we keep a queue and deliver from - * a tasklet. + * a work. */ if (!run_to_completion) spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->waiting_rcv_msgs_lock, flags); @@ -4887,9 +4887,9 @@ void ipmi_smi_msg_received(struct ipmi_smi *intf, spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags); if (run_to_completion) - smi_recv_tasklet(&intf->recv_tasklet); + smi_recv_work(&intf->recv_work); else - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_msg_received); @@ -4899,7 +4899,7 @@ void ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout(struct ipmi_smi *intf) return; atomic_set(&intf->watchdog_pretimeouts_to_deliver, 1); - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(ipmi_smi_watchdog_pretimeout); @@ -5068,7 +5068,7 @@ static bool ipmi_timeout_handler(struct ipmi_smi *intf, flags); } - tasklet_schedule(&intf->recv_tasklet); + queue_work(system_bh_wq, &intf->recv_work); return need_timer; }
The only generic interface to execute asynchronously in the BH context is tasklet; however, it's marked deprecated and has some design flaws. To replace tasklets, BH workqueue support was recently added. A BH workqueue behaves similarly to regular workqueues except that the queued work items are executed in the BH context. This patch converts drivers/infiniband/* from tasklet to BH workqueue. Based on the work done by Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-6.10 Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> --- drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 30 ++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)