[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0adec8a4-8cbc-d14e-f6a5-c6c288100a1e@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 09:24:58 +0800
From: shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <jhs@...atatu.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<vladbu@...lanox.com>, <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>,
<yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net,v2] net: sched: tbf: don't call qdisc_put() while
holding tree lock
On 2022/9/6 2:13, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:39:30AM +0800, Zhengchao Shao wrote:
>> The issue is the same to commit c2999f7fb05b ("net: sched: multiq: don't
>> call qdisc_put() while holding tree lock"). Qdiscs call qdisc_put() while
>> holding sch tree spinlock, which results sleeping-while-atomic BUG.
>>
>
> Hm, did you see an actual warning here??
>
> The commit you mentioned above is a classful Qdisc which accepts
> user-specified child Qdisc, but TBF technically does not, I don't think
> you can change its default fifo.
>
> Thanks.
Hi Wang:
Thank you for your reply. My apologise. I don't see the
warning here. Yes, TBF is classless qdisc, its default fifo is
bfifo and reset or destroy process will not sleep. So, it's not
a issue. Should I revert it, or keep it in this format(qdisc_put
out of holding sch tree spinlock).
Zhengchao Shao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists