[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F86BBA.4050700@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:40:10 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Amit S. Kale" <amitkale@...syssoft.com>,
Mithlesh Thukral <mithlesh@...syssoft.com>,
Vitaly Wool <vwool@...mvista.com>, Mark Huth <mhuth@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] [PATCH 2.6.20-rc7] 8139too KGDBoE fix
Hello, I wrote:
>>> This thread came up on kgdb-bugreport mailing list. Could you please
>>> suggest us what's the correct way of fixing this problem?
>>> 1. When running a kgdb on RTL8139 ethernet interface: 8139too driver
>>> prints too many "Out-of-sync dirty pointer" messages on console and
>>> gdb can't connect to kgdb stub. These messages can be suppressed,
>>> though it still results in connection failures frequently.
>>> 2. Here is how kgdb uses polling mechanism for communication to gdb.
>>> kgdb calls netpoll_set_trap(1) just before entering a loop where it
>>> communicates to gdb. It calls netpoll_set_trap(0) after it is done
>>> and wants to resume a kernel. The communication to gdb goes through
>>> netpoll_poll (which calls kgdb rx_hook) and netpoll_send_udp functions.
>>> 3. A queue for an interface may have been stopped by it's driver by
>>> calling netif_stop_queue. After this if kgdb attempts to enter
>>> communication with gdb, it'll call netpoll_set_trap(1), after which
>>> the queue can't be started again. This is a potential deadlock
>>> situation. Is there a way out of this?
No way but at least "emulate" the queue controls...
>>> 4. Is it necessary to call netpoll_set_trap(1) at all before entering
>>> gdb communication loop? Even if a driver stops the queue in middle of
>>> the communication netpoll_poll and netpoll_send_udp calls can recover
>>> from that by calling driver's interrupt and poll routines. Is this a
>>> valid statement?
It seems that having queue control working as usual is dangerous in case
of KGDB being active: this leads to wake_softirqd() being called, which seems
undesirable (there has been report about the eventual lockup trying to get
runqueue lock).
>> I'd like to return to this again (having received no feedback)...
>> The idea is to change how CONFIG_NETPOLL_TRAP is implemented:
>> instead of
>> completely bypassing queue locking after netpoll_set_trap(1) has been
>> called, how about we set and chack some other flag (internal to
>> netpoll) telling it that the queue is frozen, i.e. watch the queue
>> state using a separate mechanism when traffic trapping is engaged?
>> This certainly
> Well, this certainly won't work, as the bit should be tied to struct
> net_device.
Well, I hadn't yet discovered npinfo member of net_device before saying
that. :-)
>>> Thanks a lot.
>>> -Amit
WBR, Sergei
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists