From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH]: was Re: LLTX and netif_stop_queue Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:16:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20050127071645.GA2731@wotan.suse.de> References: <20050119144711.3fdd3d93.davem@davemloft.net> <20050119151853.259de49a@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050119164640.6c67bdfa.davem@davemloft.net> <52r7kgu5n5.fsf@topspin.com> <20050119230526.393a5184.davem@davemloft.net> <20050120085611.33f9485e@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050121105452.GA12988@xi.wantstofly.org> <20050125222705.1ee878fd.davem@davemloft.net> <20050126132512.GA18220@xi.wantstofly.org> <20050126223247.3e4643cc.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lennert Buytenhek , shemminger@osdl.org, roland@topspin.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, iod00d@hp.com, eric.lemoine@gmail.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, ak@suse.de, openib-general@openib.org, kaber@trash.net Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050126223247.3e4643cc.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:32:47PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:25:12 +0100 > Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > > > I've thought about this a bit, and the only sane way of doing recursion > > detection that doesn't involve 'struct net_device' would be to keep track > > of the recursion depth (perhaps per-CPU as you suggest) and tossing the > > packet when it exceeds some random value, right? > > Yes, that's the idea. per CPU only works in preemptive kernel if you have preemption disabled all the time. Do you? Seems not likely to me. -Andi