| To: | Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Deadlock in af_packet/packet_rcv |
| From: | Olaf Kirch <okir@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:45:35 +0100 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <41AC5A26.6000400@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20041125205503.GA18083@xxxxxxx> <41AC3E2F.2030003@xxxxxxxxx> <20041130110110.GD16970@xxxxxxx> <41AC5A26.6000400@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6i |
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 12:31:50PM +0100, Tommy Christensen wrote:
> I still don't agree with the conclusion, though. The spin_lock_bh()
> is changed to a local_bh_disable() and an optional spin_lock().
> That should not lead to what you are seeing!
Well, the code in 2.6.9 has
#define HARD_TX_LOCK(dev, cpu) { \
if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_LLTX) == 0) { \
spin_lock(&dev->xmit_lock); \
dev->xmit_lock_owner = cpu; \
} \
}
i.e. there's no local_bh_disable at all - adding the local_bh_disable
was the whole point of my patch. Or did you refer to a different spinlock?
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | Things that make Monday morning interesting, #2:
okir@xxxxxxx | "We have 8,000 NFS mount points, why do we keep
---------------+ running out of privileged ports?"
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | The evolution of your rolling ways, Trikke |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Deadlock in af_packet/packet_rcv, Tommy Christensen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Deadlock in af_packet/packet_rcv, Tommy Christensen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Deadlock in af_packet/packet_rcv, Tommy Christensen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |