Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:45:30 -0500 | From | "John W. Linville" <> | Subject | Re: [3.2-rc3] 100% CPU usage while in del_timer_sync from iwl3945_rs_free_sta |
| |
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 04:23:19PM +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Thu 01-12-11 13:44:40, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Thu 01-12-11 12:59:12, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > >> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:55:38AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > > [ 349.316070] iwl3945_rs_free_sta rs_sta f4be1ac0 > >> > > [ 349.316076] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > >> > > [ 349.316097] WARNING: at drivers/net/wireless/iwlegacy/iwl-3945-rs.c:438 iwl3945_rs_free_sta+0x33/0x42 [iwl3945]() > >> > > >> > Johannes pointed on irc that this problem is most likely caused by: > >> > > >> > commit f785d83a19bca326f79d127a413e35769afc0105 > >> > Author: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com> > >> > Date: Mon Aug 8 16:50:22 2011 +0300 > >> > > >> > mac80211: clear sta.drv_priv on reconfiguration > >> > > >> > Michal, could you confirm that? If that is the root of the problem, we > >> > need patch for iwlegacy (and iwlwifi) that allocate separate memory for > >> > rc structures. > >> > >> Should I just revert it? > > > > Reverted and guess what ;) > > Yeah, it works. So feel free to add > > Reported-adn-Tested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> > > to the revert. > > > cool. after giving it a second look, i agree with Stanislaw - let's > continue with the revert.
I'm reverting it now.
> > Anyway, I have really no idea about the 80211 stack but the patch > > doesn't seem to be correct from the layering POV. Why should generic > > layer clear something that is driver private data (or at least the > > naming suggests that it is driver specific data)? > > the driver should "know" the station (and its private data) only > between the .sta_add() and .sta_remove() callbacks. > on suspend, we do call sta_remove(), so it's valid to clear the private data. > > the problem is that the rate control also uses the same private data, > and is valid also after sta_remove() was called. i think the right > solution is to split the generic private data and the rate control > private data.
Sounds like a reasonable plan to me -- thanks for volunteering! :-)
John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. -- 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/
| |