[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081229115827.GA441@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:58:27 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
"Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: unsafe locks seen with netperf on net-2.6.29 tree
* Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:28:58PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > i got the splat further below with Peter's workaround applied.
>
> This looks like the issue that Peter's original patch (the one that
> differentiated between instances of percpu counters) fixed. Did you have
> both of his patches applied?
no, i only applied one of them. Is his second patch a good solution in
your opinion, and should i thus test both of them? (or will the second one
iterate some more - in which case i will keep the revert for now)
Ingo
--
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