Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330__netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()

[Jarek Poplawski]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:04:36PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
...
> I'm sure as hell, I miss sth. but can't it be done by this pseudo-code:

...And I really doubt it can't be done like this.

Jarek P.

> 
> netif_tx_lock(device)
> {
> 	mutex_lock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> 	foreach_queue_entries(queue, device->queues)
> 	{
> 		spin_lock(queue->tx_lock);
> 		set_noop_tx_handler(queue);
> 		spin_unlock(queue->tx_lock);
> 	}
> 	mutex_unlock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> }
> 
> netif_tx_unlock(device)
> {
> 	mutex_lock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> 	foreach_queue_entries(queue, device->queues)
> 	{
> 		spin_lock(queue->tx_lock);
> 		set_useful_tx_handler(queue);
> 		spin_unlock(queue->tx_lock);
> 	}
> 	mutex_unlock(device->queue_entry_mutex);
> }
> 
> Then protect use of the queues by queue->tx_lock in transmit path.
> The first setup of the queue doesn't need to be protected, since no-one
> knows the device. The final cleanup of the device doesn't need to be
> protected either, because netif_tx_lock() and netif_tx_unlock() should
> not be called after entering the final cleanup.
> 
> Some VM locking works this way...
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Ingo Oeser
--
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/