netdev - Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080328143953.GA14642@ami.dom.local>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:39:53 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Matheos Worku <Matheos.Worku@....COM>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, hadi@...erus.ca
Subject: Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup - CPU#X

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:53:38PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:45PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > 
> > Considering this, I wonder why using this __LINK_STATE_QDISC_RUNNING
> > flag to control enqueuing as well would be a wrong idea? Wouldn't this
> > enforce pseudo affinity?
> 
> Could you elaborate on how you intend to use it to control the
> act of enqueueing?

Probably some backlog would be necessary, similarly to RX. The main
question is how much cache problem is such enqueuing from other CPUs.

Jarek P.
--
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