[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496F04AB.2080705@bigtelecom.ru>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:40:59 +0300
From: Badalian Vyacheslav <slavon@...telecom.ru>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC: Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb>,
Chris Caputo <ccaputo@....net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: deadlocks if use htb
Jarek Poplawski пишет:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:01:14AM +0200, Denys Fedoryschenko wrote:
> ...
>
>> Jarek, can you give me exact name of patch or link to it?
>> I will test it on production.
>> And i am interested in searching, what is a problem.
>>
>
> If there is nothing better I could recommend the patch below for
> -stable (2.6.28), when it's tested.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek P.
> ---
>
> diff -Nurp a2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c b2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c
> --- a2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c 2008-12-11 08:16:16.000000000 +0000
> +++ b2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c 2008-12-15 10:44:32.000000000 +0000
> @@ -924,6 +924,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *htb_dequeue(struc
> }
> }
> sch->qstats.overlimits++;
> + qdisc_watchdog_cancel(&q->watchdog);
> qdisc_watchdog_schedule(&q->watchdog, next_event);
> fin:
> return skb;
>
>
Jarek, i easy can test patch 4 without 2+3 if it needed at heavy
production server. I use dynamic routing and if server crashed - traffic
go to another pc after few seconds. I not test it because you say that
its not needed if for me help 3+2. I apply it today and test at few servers.
--
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