[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8fcsX7qgyK6tCGCqfi8RN7a-hMGfmh0K2wOpqXayxNM0lKgbjttNfpYkZHA29D0SN5WJ5h3-auiaClAq1nGw5BulC8wOzfa_lqR4bx73phM=@willsroot.io>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 15:23:44 +0000
From: William Liu <will@...lsroot.io>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Savy <savy@...t3mfailure.io>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Victor Nogueira <victor@...atatu.com>, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] net/sched: Soft Lockup/Task Hang and OOM Loop in netem_dequeue
On Friday, May 23rd, 2025 at 11:01 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>
>
> looks ok from 30k feet. Comments:
> You dont need a count variable anymore because the per-cpu variable
> serves the same goal - so please get rid of it.
> Submit a formal patchset - including at least one tdc test(your
> validation tests are sufficient) then we can do a better review.
> And no netdev comments are complete if we dont talk about the xmas
> tree variable layout. Not your fault on the state of the lights on
> that tree but dont make it worse;-> move the nest_level assignment as
>
> the first line in the function.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
Ok will do. Can you clarify the count variable issue? My understanding of the count variable is that it accounts for both the possibility of simulated duplication or loss. The nest_level I added is to prevent against duplication of a duplicate due to re-entrancy.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists