[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080725200137.GC3107@ami.dom.local>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:01:37 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Ingo Oeser <netdev@...eo.de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
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, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:36:15PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 21:34 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > > Umm, of course it cannot, because then we'd have to take the mutex in
> > > the TX path, which we cannot. We cannot have another lock in the TX
> > > path, what's so hard to understand about? We need to be able to lock all
> > > queues to lock out multiple tx paths at once in some (really) slow paths
> > > but not have any extra lock overhead for the tx path, especially not a
> > > single lock.
> >
> > But this mutex doesn't have to be mutex. And it's not for the tx path,
> > only for "service" just like netif_tx_lock(). The fast path needs only
> > queue->tx_lock.
>
> No, we need to be able to lock out multiple TX paths at once.
IMHO, it can do the same. We could e.g. insert a locked spinlock into
this noop_tx_handler(), to give everyone some waiting.
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists