[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070702092408.GA137@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:24:08 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module
On 07/02, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > > --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > > @@ -72,7 +72,8 @@ static void queue_process(struct work_struct *work)
> > > netif_tx_unlock(dev);
> > > local_irq_restore(flags);
> > >
> > > - schedule_delayed_work(&npinfo->tx_work, HZ/10);
> > > + if (atomic_read(&npinfo->refcnt))
> > > + schedule_delayed_work(&npinfo->tx_work, HZ/10);
> > > return;
> > > }
>
> [...snip...]
>
> So, 2.6.21 needs something better (maybe you've found it btw.?),
> but they weren't too interested, anyway.
We can do a double flush trick. If queue_process() checks ->refcnt before
schedule_delayed_work() like above, netpoll_cleanup() can do
flush_scheduled_work();
// the next invocation of queue_process()
// must see ->refcnt == 0
if (!cancel_delayed_work(&npinfo->tx_work)) {
/* may be queued, wait for completion */
flush_scheduled_work();
}
Jarek, I don't understand net/, a silly question. Why do we need the #2 chunk?
Isn't it better to move skb_queue_purge(&npinfo->txq) after cancel_..._work()
instead?
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists