Re: [BUG] igb : rtnl assert on resume

[Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2309 bytes --]

On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 10:51 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hi guys
> 
> Not sure if its a regression (it seems linux-3.0 probably should trigger
> same trace) but I caught this on latest net-next when suspend/resume
> cycle was done :
> 
> [ 5279.891512] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (1665)
> [ 5279.891515] Pid: 2785, comm: kworker/u:9 Not tainted 3.1.0-rc9+ #81
> [ 5279.891517] Call Trace:
> [ 5279.891523]  [<ffffffff814802ec>] netif_set_real_num_tx_queues+0x1ac/0x1c0
> [ 5279.891540]  [<ffffffffa00244d1>] igb_init_interrupt_scheme+0x151/0x4b0 [igb]
> [ 5279.891546]  [<ffffffffa002984d>] igb_resume+0x9d/0x160 [igb]
> [ 5279.891550]  [<ffffffff812e0b91>] pci_legacy_resume+0x41/0x60
> [ 5279.891552]  [<ffffffff812e17c0>] pci_pm_resume+0x90/0xd0
> [ 5279.891555]  [<ffffffff813896b7>] pm_op+0xe7/0x1c0
> [ 5279.891558]  [<ffffffff81389ba7>] device_resume+0xf7/0x1b0
> [ 5279.891561]  [<ffffffff8108a520>] ? async_schedule+0x20/0x20
> [ 5279.891564]  [<ffffffff81389c81>] async_resume+0x21/0x50
> [ 5279.891566]  [<ffffffff8108a59f>] async_run_entry_fn+0x7f/0x180
> [ 5279.891569]  [<ffffffff8107ca73>] process_one_work+0x123/0x480
> [ 5279.891572]  [<ffffffff8107d638>] ? manage_workers.isra.30+0x1e8/0x230
> [ 5279.891574]  [<ffffffff8107d7de>] worker_thread+0x15e/0x360
> [ 5279.891576]  [<ffffffff8107d680>] ? manage_workers.isra.30+0x230/0x230
> [ 5279.891579]  [<ffffffff8108225c>] kthread+0x8c/0xa0
> [ 5279.891583]  [<ffffffff8157fc74>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [ 5279.891586]  [<ffffffff810821d0>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xa0/0xa0
> [ 5279.891588]  [<ffffffff8157fc70>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13
> 
> Thanks

Any chance you can pull my net-next tree Eric to verify if the issue
still exists?

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jkirsher/net-next.git

I currently have 11 igb patches on that tree (which I recently
submitted) that are not in Dave's tree yet.

There have been a number of cleanup's recently, so while this is not
expected, I am not surprised at the same time since I am in the middle
of the update to igb.

We have not seen this on my local tree (which has the 11 patches plus
4-5 more patches for igb).  Almost all of them are
cleanup's/re-organizing of igb, so nothing specific to the issue you
have seen.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]