RE: [BUGS] 2.5.69 syncppp

[Paul Fulghum (paulkf@microgate.com)]

On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 12:42, Alan Cox wrote: 
> On Sad, 2003-05-24 at 00:11, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> > I thought it was in place to serialize state changes.
> > I'll look at it harder, you may be right in that
> > it is not necessary.
> 
> The state serialization doesn't have to be 100% for PPP however,
> you already have the same races present due to wire time so I
> also think it should be ok.

OK, state changes can happen from several different
sources, and not all of these sources of input are
synchronized.

The spinlock in cp_timeout() does not synchronize
with input from sppp_input(), but *does* synchronize
with sppp_keepalive() which is run off another timer.

But I think I understand what Alan is getting at in
that the PPP state tables are designed to be tolerant
of transient oddities and should converge to a final
state regardless of a timing glitch/race.

Not worrying about state change synchronization and
discarding the use of the spinlock in cp_timeout()
will remove the warning for that case.

But sppp_keepalive() uses a spinlock to synchronize
access to the linked list of sppp devices. So this
path can also cause the warning.

So there are multiple places that call dev_queue_xmit()
with spinlocks held, which provokes this warning.

Which makes me wonder:
Was it really the intention of the change to kernel/softirq.c:105
(source of the warning) that callers to dev_queue_xmit()
not be allowed to use spinlocks? If so, then what other
synchronization techniques are appropriate for use in
an interrupt and timer context?



-- 
Paul Fulghum, paulkf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Microgate Corporation, http://www.microgate.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/