Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:15:24 +0300 | From | Evgeniy Polyakov <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.23 WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:139 local_bh_enable() |
| |
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:59:43PM -0600, Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com) wrote: > So I'd be surprised if that was a problem. But I can imagine having > problems for skbs without destructors which run into one of these in > __kfree_skb: > > dst_release > secpath_put > nf_conntrack_put > nf_conntrack_put_reasm > nf_bridge_put > > ..some or all of which assume a softirq context.
bridging is ok, others require softirq context. I've sent a patch (the last one should be ok) to guard against xfrm and connection tracking.
> > No matter if we are under memory pressure or whatever - it is not > > allowed - a lot of skbs are supposed to be freed in softirq context, > > that is why dev_kfree_skb_any() exists. > > Some skbs we definitely -can- free in irq context. The only ones we > care about are the ones generated by netpoll. If there's a reason you > think netpoll's own skbs can't be freed, please describe it.
Only some and to distinguish them we can not use destructor - if it is set (even empty function) it will fire an alarm.
> > I think we can drop skbs _without_ destructor from the queue though in > > that conditions given that we actually need only one. > > Huh?
Don't mind - friday... I posted a patch (third one should be ok) to fix this issue.
-- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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/
| |