Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:55:21 -0800 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: Lockup with 2.6.9-ac15 related to netconsole |
| |
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 01:22:18AM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote: > Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> : > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 09:42:08AM -0000, Mark Broadbent wrote: > > > > > > Exactly the same happens, I still get a 'NMI Watchdog detected LOCKUP' > > > with the r8169 device using the above patch on top of 2.6.10-rc3-bk10. > > > > Ok, that suggests a problem localized to netpoll itself. Do you have > > spinlock debugging turned on by any chance? > > Any chance of: > 1 dev_queue_xmit > 2 dev->xmit_lock taken > 3 interruption > 4 printk > 5 netconsole write > 6 dev->xmit_lock again > 7 lockup > > ? > > This is probably the silly question of the day.
Maybe, but the answer isn't obvious to me at the moment as I haven't been thinking about such stuff enough lately. Silly response of the day:
Mark, can you try this (again completely untested, but at least compiles) patch? I'm afraid I don't have a proper test rig to reproduce this at the moment. This will attempt to grab the lock, and if it fails, will check for recursion. Then it will try to print a message on the local console, temporarily disabling netconsole to allow the printk to get through..
Index: l/net/core/netpoll.c =================================================================== --- l.orig/net/core/netpoll.c 2004-11-04 10:53:23.388610000 -0800 +++ l/net/core/netpoll.c 2004-12-20 16:45:40.212709000 -0800 @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ #define MAX_SKBS 32 #define MAX_UDP_CHUNK 1460 +static int netpoll_kill; + static spinlock_t skb_list_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; static int nr_skbs; static struct sk_buff *skbs; @@ -183,13 +185,24 @@ int status; repeat: - if(!np || !np->dev || !netif_running(np->dev)) { + if(!np || !np->dev || !netif_running(np->dev) || netpoll_kill) { __kfree_skb(skb); return; } - spin_lock(&np->dev->xmit_lock); - np->dev->xmit_lock_owner = smp_processor_id(); + if(spin_trylock(&np->dev->xmit_lock)) + np->dev->xmit_lock_owner = smp_processor_id(); + else { + if(np->dev->xmit_lock_owner == smp_processor_id()) { + netpoll_kill = 1; + __kfree_skb(skb); + printk("Tried to recursively get dev->xmit_lock"); + netpoll_kill = 0; + return; + } + spin_lock(&np->dev->xmit_lock); + + } /* * network drivers do not expect to be called if the queue is
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
| |