Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: Problem with dev_kfree_skb_any() in 2.6.0 | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:44:29 +1100 |
| |
On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 12:07, David S. Miller wrote: > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:17:34 +1100 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > We should probably fix dev_kfree_skb_any() ? Still ugly imho though... > > > > - if (in_irq()) > > + if (in_irq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > That's not the right fix, the sungem PM code path TX queue > packet freeing should be instead done outside of IRQ spinlocks. > > .../...
The "workaround" is a bit complicated, but I'll look into it, I could probably get the whole clean ring thing out of the spinlock instead (I need to reduce time spent in those locks anyway).
Though it's really inconsistent imho, to have that routine that can be called at task time, interrupt time, but not task time with a spinlock held... especially since it's called *kfree*, I would have expected kfree-like semantics...
Note that among the drivers broken with that same bug (typically in the close() path) are :
- sunhme - b44 - tg3 - ...
Almost all drivers calling dev_kfree_skb_any() do that within a spinlock_irq ...
Ben.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |