Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*timers\s+in\s+net\/ipv6\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*timers\s+in\s+net\/ipv6\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:07:52 +1000; Attached is my shot at tightening the timer handling in net/ipv6. Andi has provided some comments (Thanks!). The fib6_run_gc() alterations are not pleasant. There is some code which I believe is saf; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00070.html (16,795 bytes)
2. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:58:42 +0400 (MSK DST); This is debugging check. We have already discussed this. OK. Modular IPv6 is so buggy, that it is useless to fix these issues separately of big picture, though. Yes, the same as in fib6 gc. del_time; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00097.html (10,163 bytes)
3. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:48:30 +0200; What I think is a bigger problem is the unsafe use of the spinlock: nothing prevents a timer on the same CPU from bumping into the spinlock, causing a deadlock. Hmm, probably the locks need to be spl; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00099.html (8,667 bytes)
4. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:59:03 +0400 (MSK DST); No dedalock, it causes reference to freed memory rather than deadlock. Nothing but refcount on fq. It is very simple and convenient solution. Andi, I have already asked you: may I change IPv4/v6 def; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00108.html (8,122 bytes)
5. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:44:23 +0200; We no longer have bh protection against timers, so a timer may run while net_rx_action executes, even on the same CPU. ipv6_reassembly has ip6_frag_lock, timer tries to aquire it on the same CPU Plea; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00110.html (8,953 bytes)
6. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:05:03 +0400 (MSK DST); softirqs are not nested. Apparently, you mean scheme, which we discussed year ago. It was dropped because of utter complexity, only one softirq per cpu is held now. OK. Alexey; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00111.html (7,656 bytes)
7. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:38:12 +0200; Ok, just hope then that there is never an exception during softirq execution (like spurious interrupt or NMI handled by an debugger) -- ret_from_exception calls the softirq. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00112.html (8,230 bytes)
8. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:27:55 +0400 (MSK DST); It will be blocked by local_bh_count(). Alexey; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00129.html (7,630 bytes)
9. timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:07:52 +1000; Hi, Alexey. Attached is my shot at tightening the timer handling in net/ipv6. Andi has provided some comments (Thanks!). The fib6_run_gc() alterations are not pleasant. There is some code which I bel; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00369.html (16,795 bytes)
10. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 21:58:42 +0400 (MSK DST); Hello! This is debugging check. We have already discussed this. OK. Modular IPv6 is so buggy, that it is useless to fix these issues separately of big picture, though. Yes, the same as in fib6 gc. de; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00396.html (10,188 bytes)
11. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:48:30 +0200; What I think is a bigger problem is the unsafe use of the spinlock: nothing prevents a timer on the same CPU from bumping into the spinlock, causing a deadlock. Hmm, probably the locks need to be spl; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00398.html (8,792 bytes)
12. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:59:03 +0400 (MSK DST); Hello! No dedalock, it causes reference to freed memory rather than deadlock. Nothing but refcount on fq. It is very simple and convenient solution. Andi, I have already asked you: may I change IPv4/; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00407.html (8,151 bytes)
13. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:44:23 +0200; We no longer have bh protection against timers, so a timer may run while net_rx_action executes, even on the same CPU. ipv6_reassembly has ip6_frag_lock, timer tries to aquire it on the same CPU Plea; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00409.html (9,082 bytes)
14. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:05:03 +0400 (MSK DST); Hello! softirqs are not nested. Apparently, you mean scheme, which we discussed year ago. It was dropped because of utter complexity, only one softirq per cpu is held now. OK. Alexey; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00410.html (7,685 bytes)
15. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:38:12 +0200; Ok, just hope then that there is never an exception during softirq execution (like spurious interrupt or NMI handled by an debugger) -- ret_from_exception calls the softirq. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00411.html (8,359 bytes)
16. Re: timers in net/ipv6 (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:27:55 +0400 (MSK DST); Hello! It will be blocked by local_bh_count(). Alexey; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00428.html (7,659 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]