Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: From my recent patch: #1 Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work() required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with delay 0 - otherwise it would endlessly loop. This patch replaces this function with cancel_delayed_work(). Later kernel versions don't require this, so here it's only for uniformity. But Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] found: But 2.6.22 doesn't need this change, why it was merged? In fact, I suspect this change adds a race, ... His description was right (thanks), so this patch reverts #1. Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oleg, I think maybe you could ack these 2 netconsole patches... They were done on your request but it looks like Andrew is waiting on something... Thanks, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:41:59 +0200 On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:52:26AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: From my recent patch: #1 Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work() required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with delay 0 - otherwise it would endlessly loop. This patch replaces this function with cancel_delayed_work(). Later kernel versions don't require this, so here it's only for uniformity. But Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] found: But 2.6.22 doesn't need this change, why it was merged? In fact, I suspect this change adds a race, ... His description was right (thanks), so this patch reverts #1. Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oleg, I think maybe you could ack these 2 netconsole patches... They were done on your request but it looks like Andrew is waiting on something... I plan to apply this patch, don't worry about it :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:47:18PM -0700, David Miller wrote: ... I plan to apply this patch, don't worry about it :) Now I'm really worried! Don't you evere sleep? Good night, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:41:59AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... They were done on your request but it looks like Andrew is waiting on something... Andrew, This time I'm not sorry for my English because I've just found I could speak Chiefly Midland and Southern U.S.. Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module
From my recent patch:
#1
Until kernel ver. 2.6.21 (including) cancel_rearming_delayed_work()
required a work function should always (unconditionally) rearm with
delay 0 - otherwise it would endlessly loop. This patch replaces
this function with cancel_delayed_work(). Later kernel versions don't
require this, so here it's only for uniformity.
But Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] found:
But 2.6.22 doesn't need this change, why it was merged?
In fact, I suspect this change adds a race,
...
His description was right (thanks), so this patch reverts #1.
Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -Nurp 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c
--- 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c 2007-07-02 09:03:27.0 +0200
+++ 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c 2007-07-02 09:32:34.0 +0200
@@ -72,8 +72,7 @@ static void queue_process(struct work_st
netif_tx_unlock(dev);
local_irq_restore(flags);
- if (atomic_read(npinfo-refcnt))
- schedule_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work, HZ/10);
+ schedule_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work, HZ/10);
return;
}
netif_tx_unlock(dev);
@@ -786,7 +785,7 @@ void netpoll_cleanup(struct netpoll *np)
if (atomic_dec_and_test(npinfo-refcnt)) {
skb_queue_purge(npinfo-arp_tx);
skb_queue_purge(npinfo-txq);
- cancel_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work);
+ cancel_rearming_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work);
flush_scheduled_work();
/* clean after last, unfinished work */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Re: [NETPOLL] netconsole: fix soft lockup when removing module
On 07/02, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
diff -Nurp 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c
--- 2.6.22-rc7-/net/core/netpoll.c2007-07-02 09:03:27.0 +0200
+++ 2.6.22-rc7/net/core/netpoll.c 2007-07-02 09:32:34.0 +0200
@@ -72,8 +72,7 @@ static void queue_process(struct work_st
netif_tx_unlock(dev);
local_irq_restore(flags);
- if (atomic_read(npinfo-refcnt))
- schedule_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work, HZ/10);
+ schedule_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work, HZ/10);
return;
}
netif_tx_unlock(dev);
@@ -786,7 +785,7 @@ void netpoll_cleanup(struct netpoll *np)
if (atomic_dec_and_test(npinfo-refcnt)) {
skb_queue_purge(npinfo-arp_tx);
skb_queue_purge(npinfo-txq);
- cancel_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work);
+ cancel_rearming_delayed_work(npinfo-tx_work);
flush_scheduled_work();
While you are here, could you also delete this flush_scheduled_work() ?
It is not needed any longer.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
