[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100708.233414.116369101.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jon.mason@...r.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, sreenivasa.honnur@...r.com,
ram.vepa@...r.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6 net-next-2.6] vxge: Use fifo based trans_start time
From: Jon Mason <jon.mason@...r.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:21:26 -0500
> @@ -968,8 +969,10 @@ vxge_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> VXGE_HW_FIFO_TXD_TX_CKO_UDP_EN);
>
> vxge_hw_fifo_txdl_post(fifo_hw, dtr);
> +
> #ifdef NETIF_F_LLTX
> - dev->trans_start = jiffies; /* NETIF_F_LLTX driver :( */
> + txq = netdev_get_tx_queue(dev, vpath_no);
> + txq->trans_start = jiffies;
> #endif
This comment was placed there not just for it's artistic value,
you should heed what it's saying when making changes like this.
NETIF_F_LLTX drivers cannot use the per-txq trans_start mechanism,
because doing so is racy.
The dev_watchdog() timer, which checks these ->trans_start values,
can only synchornize with the driver by the traditional means,
which is by taking the spinlock on the TX queue. This is bypassed
by NETIF_F_LLTX drivers, so the driver can be in it's TX handler
while the watchdog timer is trying to evaluate the trans_start
state.
This is one of a many reasons why NETIF_F_LLTX is a bad idea and you
should convert your driver away from it.
--
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