From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, akpm@osdl.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com,
cramerj@intel.com, scott.feldman@intel.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c:119
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 04:53:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030930045306.5ac6be0d.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030929224929.4dc6ed4a.davem@redhat.com>
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:49:29 -0700
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:36:42 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> > Oh, it's taking xmit_lock in a timer handler. I give up.
>
> I think e1000 should rethink what it is doing :-)
Sorry, in case it isn't painfully obvious, instead of hinting
at it let me state explicitly that ->xmit_lock is a BH disabling
lock not an IRQ disabling one.
Therefore, e1000's IRQ disabling when grabbing that lock is
buggy and need to be changed to BH disabling.
If it needs to disable IRQs for it's own internal locking, it
needs to do so such that such IRQ disabling internal locks
are not held while kfree_skb() is being invoked.
Calling kfree_skb() with IRQs disabled in the e1000 driver is
the cause of this bug.
Jeff, if you pushed these e1000 updates that make it grap
->xmit_lock() with disabling IRQs instead of BH into 2.4.x
trees too, beware!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-30 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-29 21:36 Fw: Badness in local_bh_enable at kernel/softirq.c:119 Andrew Morton
2003-09-30 5:49 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-30 11:53 ` David S. Miller [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-09-30 17:27 Feldman, Scott
2003-10-01 6:51 ` David S. Miller
2003-10-01 8:19 Feldman, Scott
2003-10-01 8:37 ` David S. Miller
2003-10-01 14:40 ` Randy.Dunlap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030930045306.5ac6be0d.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=cramerj@intel.com \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=scott.feldman@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).