On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:59:43PM -0600, Matt Mackall ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> So I'd be surprised if that was a problem. But I can imagine having
> problems for skbs without destructors which run into one of these in
> __kfree_skb:
>
> dst_release
> secpath_put
> nf_conntrack_put
> nf_conntrack_put_reasm
> nf_bridge_put
>
> ..some or all of which assume a softirq context.
bridging is ok, others require softirq context.
I've sent a patch (the last one should be ok) to guard against xfrm and
connection tracking.
> > No matter if we are under memory pressure or whatever - it is not
> > allowed - a lot of skbs are supposed to be freed in softirq context,
> > that is why dev_kfree_skb_any() exists.
>
> Some skbs we definitely -can- free in irq context. The only ones we
> care about are the ones generated by netpoll. If there's a reason you
> think netpoll's own skbs can't be freed, please describe it.
Only some and to distinguish them we can not use destructor - if it is
set (even empty function) it will fire an alarm.
> > I think we can drop skbs _without_ destructor from the queue though in
> > that conditions given that we actually need only one.
>
> Huh?
Don't mind - friday...
I posted a patch (third one should be ok) to fix this issue.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
