From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: RESEND, HTB(?) softlockup, vanilla 2.6.24 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:45:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20080216204519.GA2739@ami.dom.local> References: <20080213081318.M90354@visp.net.lb> <47B69824.4030405@gmail.com> <20080216102502.M41110@visp.net.lb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Denys Fedoryshchenko Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:59918 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756411AbYBPUmX (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:42:23 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so81481ugc.16 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:42:22 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080216102502.M41110@visp.net.lb> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 12:25:31PM +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > Thanks, i will try it. > You think lockdep can be buggy? Just like every code... But the main reason is it has quite meaningful overhead, so could be right "in production" only after lockups happen. But if it doesn't report anything anyway... Your report shows there are quite long paths of calls during softirqs with some actions (ipt + mirred here?) and qdiscs, so if I'm not wrong with this stack problem, this would need some optimization. And, of course, there could be some additional bugs involved around too: otherwise it seems this should happen more often. But I don't expect you would try to debug this on your servers, so I hope, it simply will be found BTW some day... Regards, Jarek P.