Re: [RFC] net: napi fix

[Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@myri.com>]

Joonwoo Park wrote:
 > 2007/12/13, Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>:
 >> David Miller wrote:
 >>> From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@myri.com>
 >>> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:29:23 -0500
 >>>
 >>>> Is the netif_running() check even required?
 >>> No, it is not.
 >>>
 >>> When a device is brought down, one of the first things
 >>> that happens is that we wait for all pending NAPI polls
 >>> to complete, then block any new polls from starting.
 >> I think this was previously (pre-2.6.24) not the case, which is why 
e1000 et al
 >> has this check as well and that's exactly what is causing most of the
 >> net_rx_action oopses in the first place. Without the netif_running() 
check
 >> previously the drivers were just unusable with NAPI and prone to 
many races with
 >> down (i.e. touching some ethtool ioctl which wants to do a reset 
while routing
 >> small packets at high numbers). that's why we added the 
netif_running() check in
 >> the first place :)
 >>
 >> There might be more drivers lurking that need this change...
 >>
 >> Auke
 >>
 >
 > Also in my case, without netif_running() check, I cannot do ifconfig 
down.
 > It stucked if packet generator was sending packets.

If the netif_running() check is indeed required to make a device break
out of napi polling and respond to an ifconfig down, then I think the
netif_running() check should be moved up into net_rx_action() to avoid
potential for driver complexity and bugs like the ones you found.

Drew