[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080723113519.GE4561@ff.dom.local>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:35:19 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:58:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
...
> 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?
>
It's a new thing mainly for new hardware/drivers, and just after
conversion (older drivers effectively use __netif_tx_lock()), so it'll
probably stay for some time until something better is found. David,
will tell the rest, I hope.
Jarek P.
--
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