Re: [patchlet] r8169: fix napi_schedule_irqoff() called with irqs enabled warning

2020-10-16 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 21:15 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > > But we should spend at least a few thoughts on whether and how the > irqoff version could be improved. This would have two benefits: I disagree, using the irqoff version in a place that irqoff is not always true is a bug. *Maybe* it wo

Re: [patchlet] r8169: fix napi_schedule_irqoff() called with irqs enabled warning

2020-10-16 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 17:26 +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:34:55PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > > I'm aware of the topic, but missing the benefits of the irqoff version > > unconditionally doesn't seem to be the best option. > > What are the benefits of the irqoff ver

Re: [patchlet] r8169: fix napi_schedule_irqoff() called with irqs enabled warning

2020-10-16 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 13:34 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > On 16.10.2020 13:26, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > When the kernel is built with PREEMPT_RT or booted with threadirqs, > > irqs are not disabled when rtl8169_interrupt() is called, inspiring > > __raise_soft

[patchlet] r8169: fix napi_schedule_irqoff() called with irqs enabled warning

2020-10-16 Thread Mike Galbraith
When the kernel is built with PREEMPT_RT or booted with threadirqs, irqs are not disabled when rtl8169_interrupt() is called, inspiring __raise_softirq_irqoff() to gripe. Use plain napi_schedule(). Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith --- drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c |2 +- 1 file

Re: dvb usb issues since kernel 4.9

2018-01-09 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 22:26 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > I've previously experienced that you can be affected by the scheduler > granularity, which is adjustable (with CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y): > > $ grep -H . /proc/sys/kernel/sched_*_granularity_ns > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_min_granula

WARNING: at net/netfilter/core.c:218 __nf_hook_entries_try_shrink+0xf7/0x110

2017-09-06 Thread Mike Galbraith
[ 21.219604] ip6_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team [ 21.433091] nf_conntrack version 0.5.0 (65536 buckets, 262144 max) [ 21.495849] ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team [ 22.404040] [ cut here ] [ 22.404267] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1379 at net/netfilt

Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

2017-09-01 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 11:58 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > The section stuff is supposed to be a trick to push the error case off > into the .text.unlikely area to avoid needing a jmp over the handler > and with possibly some redundancy removal done by the compiler (though > this appears to be rather

Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

2017-09-01 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 10:12 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 08:57 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >> On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 11:45 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1

Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

2017-09-01 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 08:57 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 11:45 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 10:00 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> > > >> Oh! So it&#x

Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

2017-08-31 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 11:45 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 10:00 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > >> Oh! So it's gcc-version sensitive? That's alarming. Is this mapping > >> c

Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

2017-08-31 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 10:00 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > Oh! So it's gcc-version sensitive? That's alarming. Is this mapping correct: > > 4.8.5: WARN, eventual kernel hang > 6.3.1, 7.0.1: WARN, but continues working Yeah, that's correct.  I find that troubling, simply because this gcc version has

Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

2017-08-31 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 21:10 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >> On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 19:27 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > >>> Interesting! Can yo

Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

2017-08-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 21:10 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >> On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 19:27 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > >>> Interesting! Can yo

Re: kernel (master) build failure w. !CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL

2017-06-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 15:35 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Galbraith > Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:01:00 +0200 > > > Greetings network wizards, > > > > The latest RT explicitly disables CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL, thus > > uncovering $subje

kernel (master) build failure w. !CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL

2017-06-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
;), kernel build fails when CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL is disabled. Move napi_hash_add/del() accordingly. Banged-upon-by: Mike Galbraith --- include/linux/netdevice.h |8 net/core/dev.c| 12 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) --- a/inc

Re: [Patch net] net_sched: replace yield() with cond_resched()

2017-04-06 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 18:13 -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Why not replace yield with msleep(1) which gets rid of the inversion > issues? That's fine, just not super efficient, if that matters. -Mike

Re: [Patch net] net_sched: replace yield() with cond_resched()

2017-04-05 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:42 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:19 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > That won't help,

Re: net/sched: latent livelock in dev_deactivate_many() due to yield() usage

2017-04-05 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 17:31 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:28:41 +0200 > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > Livelock can be triggered by setting kworkers to SCHED_FIFO, then > > suspend/resume.. you come back from sleepy-land with a spinning > > kw

Re: net/sched: latent livelock in dev_deactivate_many() due to yield() usage

2017-04-05 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:55 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:25 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > -

Re: net/sched: latent livelock in dev_deactivate_many() due to yield() usage

2017-04-04 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:25 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > - while (some_qdisc_is_busy(dev)) > > - yield(); > > + swait_event_timeout(swait, > > !some_qdisc_is_busy(de

Re: [Patch net] net_sched: replace yield() with cond_resched()

2017-04-04 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:19 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > That won't help, cond_resched() has the same impact upon a lone > > SCHED_FIFO task as yield() does.. none. > > Hmm? In the comment you quote: > >

Re: [Patch net] net_sched: replace yield() with cond_resched()

2017-04-04 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:52 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > diff --git a/net/sched/sch_generic.c b/net/sched/sch_generic.c > index 1a2f9e9..4725d2f 100644 > --- a/net/sched/sch_generic.c > +++ b/net/sched/sch_generic.c > @@ -925,7 +925,7 @@ void dev_deactivate_many(struct list_head *head) > /* Wai

Re: net/sched: latent livelock in dev_deactivate_many() due to yield() usage

2017-04-04 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 15:39 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > Thanks for the report! Looks like a quick solution here is to replace > this yield() with cond_resched(), it is harder to really wait for > all qdisc's to transmit all packets. No, cond_resched() won't help. What I did is below, but I suspect

net/sched: latent livelock in dev_deactivate_many() due to yield() usage

2017-04-01 Thread Mike Galbraith
Greetings network wizards, Quoting kernel/sched/core.c: /** * yield - yield the current processor to other threads. * * Do not ever use this function, there's a 99% chance you're doing it wrong. * * The scheduler is at all times free to pick the calling task as the most * eligible task to ru

Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

2016-03-07 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 16:31 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 02/29/2016 05:58 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > WRT -rt: if dma tasklets really do have hard (ish) constraints, -rt > > recently "broke" in the same way.. of all softirqs which are deferred > &g

Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

2016-02-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 07:03 -0800, Peter Hurley wrote: > > If I'm listening properly, the root cause is that there is a timing > > constraint involved, which is being exposed because one softirq raises > > another (ew). > > Not the case. The softirq is raised from interrupt. Yeah, saw that on re

Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

2016-02-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2016-02-28 at 18:01 +0100, Francois Romieu wrote: > Mike Galbraith : > [...] > > Hrm, relatively new + tasklet woes rings a bell. Ah, that.. > > > > > > What's worse is that at the point where this code was written it was > > already well known

Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

2016-02-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sat, 2016-02-27 at 10:19 -0800, Peter Hurley wrote: > Hi Eric, > > For a while now, we've been struggling to understand why we've been > observing missed uart rx DMA. > > Because both the uart driver (omap8250) and the dmaengine driver > (edma) were (relatively) new, we assumed there was some

Re: skbuff: Fix checksum start check in skb_postpull_rcsum

2015-10-01 Thread Mike Galbraith
ve pulled. > > Fixes: 6ae459bdaaee ("skbuff: Fix skb checksum flag on skb pull") > Reported-by: Mike Galbraith > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu > > diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h > index 2b0a30a..4398411 100644 > --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h

Re: [regression] 6ae459bd skbuff: Fix skb checksum flag on skb pull

2015-10-01 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 16:42 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > homer:/usr/local/src/kernel/linux-3.x.git # time strace -vvvfFtT git remote > > update 2> /strace.out > > Fetching origin > > > > real2m9.164s > > user

[regression] 6ae459bd skbuff: Fix skb checksum flag on skb pull

2015-10-01 Thread Mike Galbraith
Greetings network wizards, $subject broke git-daemon here. homer:/usr/local/src/kernel/linux-3.x.git # time strace -vvvfFtT git remote update 2> /strace.out Fetching origin real2m9.164s user0m1.616s sys 0m0.316s 2 minutes of thumb twiddling should have been.. homer:/usr/local/src/

Re: 2.6.23-rc1: BUG_ON in kmap_atomic_prot()

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 11:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I guess this was the bug: > > Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you? I don't have very much runtime on it yet, but yes, it seems to have. -Mike

Re: 2.6.23-rc1: BUG_ON in kmap_atomic_prot()

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 12:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that > > out. > > My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1,

Re: 2.6.23-rc1: BUG_ON in kmap_atomic_prot()

2007-07-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that out. My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but nothing made it to the console, and I didn't have a serial console running. I didn't have DEBUG_PA

Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (v2) (part 2)

2007-02-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 09:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thomas Gleixner napisał(a): > > > Adrian, > > > > > > On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 23:05 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >> Subject: kernel BUG at kernel/time/tick-sched.c:168 (CONFIG_NO_HZ) >

Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

2006-11-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 17:08 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > + if (p->backlog_flag == 0) { > + if (!TASK_INTERACTIVE(p) || expired_starving(rq)) { > + enqueue_task(p, rq->expired); > + if (p->static_prio < rq->best

Re: 2.6.18-rc7-mm1

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 13:36 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:25:21 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - It took maybe ten hours solid work to get this dogpile vaguely > > > compiling and limping to a login prompt on x86, x86_64 and powerpc. > > >

Re: patch blocked

2006-09-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 16:33 +0800, Zang Roy-r61911 wrote: > Hi, > Does anyone can tell me why some of my patches were blocked in the > mailing list. > I do not use attachment. The body of the mail is not exceed 40KB in > size. > Roy A snippet from the 'Bogofilter at VGER' announcment: