[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHA+R7McuqYDshugsWcaeBbBsEg3QY59LiovYthcq6bH1fLTNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:12:25 -0800
From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Glanzmann <thomas@...nzmann.de>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>, andy@...yhouse.net,
Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (4494) and RTNL:
assertion failed at net/core/rtnetlink.c (940)
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That would eliminate the warning, but is suboptimal. Acquiring
>>RTNL is not necessary on the vast majority of state machine runs
>>(because no state changes take place, i.e., no ports are disabled or
>>enabled). The above change would add 10 round trips per second to RTNL,
>>which seems excessive.
>>
>> Also, we cannot unconditionally acquire RTNL in this function,
>>as it would race with the call to cancel_delayed_work_sync from
>>bond_close (via bond_work_cancel_all).
OK.
>
> Thought of one more problem: we can't hold a regular lock while
> calling rtmsg_ifinfo, as it may sleep in alloc_skb. The rtmsg_ifinfo
> call has to be RTNL and nothing else.
>
s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC/
--
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