From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330 __netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98() Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:36:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20080725183622.GA3107@ami.dom.local> References: <1216806614.7257.152.camel@twins> <1216810696.7257.175.camel@twins> <20080723.131441.200166513.davem@davemloft.net> <200807251904.37302.netdev@axxeo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, Larry.Finger-tQ5ms3gMjBLk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org, kaber-dcUjhNyLwpNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org To: Ingo Oeser Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200807251904.37302.netdev-BkyiQQGWkgE@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:04:36PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote: ... > I'm sure as hell, I miss sth. but can't it be done by this pseudo-code: ...And I really doubt it can't be done like this. Jarek P. > > netif_tx_lock(device) > { > mutex_lock(device->queue_entry_mutex); > foreach_queue_entries(queue, device->queues) > { > spin_lock(queue->tx_lock); > set_noop_tx_handler(queue); > spin_unlock(queue->tx_lock); > } > mutex_unlock(device->queue_entry_mutex); > } > > netif_tx_unlock(device) > { > mutex_lock(device->queue_entry_mutex); > foreach_queue_entries(queue, device->queues) > { > spin_lock(queue->tx_lock); > set_useful_tx_handler(queue); > spin_unlock(queue->tx_lock); > } > mutex_unlock(device->queue_entry_mutex); > } > > Then protect use of the queues by queue->tx_lock in transmit path. > The first setup of the queue doesn't need to be protected, since no-one > knows the device. The final cleanup of the device doesn't need to be > protected either, because netif_tx_lock() and netif_tx_unlock() should > not be called after entering the final cleanup. > > Some VM locking works this way... > > > Best Regards > > Ingo Oeser -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html