[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080725183622.GA3107@ami.dom.local>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:36:22 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Ingo Oeser <netdev@...eo.de>
Cc: 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 07:04:36PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
...
> I'm sure as hell, I miss sth. but can't it be done by this pseudo-code:
...And I really doubt it can't be done like this.
Jarek P.
>
> netif_tx_lock(device)
> {
> mutex_lock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> foreach_queue_entries(queue, device->queues)
> {
> spin_lock(queue->tx_lock);
> set_noop_tx_handler(queue);
> spin_unlock(queue->tx_lock);
> }
> mutex_unlock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> }
>
> netif_tx_unlock(device)
> {
> mutex_lock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> foreach_queue_entries(queue, device->queues)
> {
> spin_lock(queue->tx_lock);
> set_useful_tx_handler(queue);
> spin_unlock(queue->tx_lock);
> }
> mutex_unlock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> }
>
> Then protect use of the queues by queue->tx_lock in transmit path.
> The first setup of the queue doesn't need to be protected, since no-one
> knows the device. The final cleanup of the device doesn't need to be
> protected either, because netif_tx_lock() and netif_tx_unlock() should
> not be called after entering the final cleanup.
>
> Some VM locking works this way...
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Ingo Oeser
--
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