[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080801070150.GB4435@ff.dom.local>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:01:50 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...eo.de, peterz@...radead.org,
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 Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 06:48:10AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 05:29:32AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
...
> > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > index 63d6bcd..69320a5 100644
> > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > @@ -4200,6 +4200,7 @@ static void netdev_init_queues(struct net_device *dev)
> > {
> > netdev_init_one_queue(dev, &dev->rx_queue, NULL);
> > netdev_for_each_tx_queue(dev, netdev_init_one_queue, NULL);
> > + spin_lock_init(&dev->tx_global_lock);
>
> This will probably need some lockdep annotations similar to
> _xmit_lock.
...BTW, we probably could also consider some optimization here: the
xmit_lock of the first queue could be treated as special, and only
the owner could do such a freezing. This would save changes of
functionality to non mq devices. On the other hand, it would need
remembering about this special treatment (so, eg. a separate lockdep
initialization than all the others).
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