[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090730010222.GA4169@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:02:22 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Matt Carlson <mcarlson@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: netpoll + xmit_lock == deadlock
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:17:35AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 07:15:17PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > Not quite. I agree private locking in a driver is a pain when you consider
> > netpoll clients, its not the tx/tx recursion you need to worry about though, its
> > shared locking between the tx and rx path that you need to be worried about.
> > We should be protected against deadlock on the _xmit_lock from what we discussed
> > above, but if you take a lock in the driver, then call printk, its possible that
> > you'll go down the ->poll routine path in the driver. If there you try to take
> > the same private lock, the result is then deadlock.
>
> xmit_lock suffers from exactly the same problem in ->poll.
>
Under what conditions do you try to take the xmit_lock from within a drivers
->poll routine? Do you have an example?
Neil
--
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