[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1216810696.7257.175.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:58:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
kaber@...sh.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330
__netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 10:13 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:50:14AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ....
> > definite NAK on using raw spinlock ops...
> >
> > I'll go look at this multiqueue stuff to see if there is anything to be
> > done.. David, what would be a good commit to start reading?
>
> ....In the case David ever sleeps: I think, the current Linus' git is
> good enough (the problem is with netdevice.h: netif_tx_lock()).
Ah, right,...
that takes a whole bunch of locks at once..
Is that really needed? - when I grep for its usage its surprisingly few
drivers using it and even less generic code.
When I look at the mac802.11 code in ieee80211_tx_pending() it looks
like it can do with just one lock at a time, instead of all - but I
might be missing some obvious details.
So I guess my question is, is netif_tx_lock() here to stay, or is the
right fix to convert all those drivers to use __netif_tx_lock() which
locks only a single queue?
--
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