From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:52:50 +0000 Message-ID: <20080814085250.GC12217@ff.dom.local> References: <20080813102701.GD5367@ff.dom.local> <20080813104238.GA11374@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080813105052.GA6838@ff.dom.local> <20080813.151918.61294677.davem@davemloft.net> <20080814075907.GA6797@ff.dom.local> <20080814081632.GB32475@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080814083127.GA12217@ff.dom.local> <20080814083336.GA452@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080814084429.GB12217@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.185]:20128 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752298AbYHNIw4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:52:56 -0400 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so363892fkq.5 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080814084429.GB12217@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:44:29AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 06:33:36PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:31:27AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure of your point... This patch is only to fix my yesterday's > > > doubt #1, and it doesn't introduce, I hope, any new live-lock > > > vulnerabity. So, if you mean doubt #2, there is needed a separate > > > patch, but I'm not sure there is a need to add a flag. I've thougt > > > about a counter in a Qdisc for consecutive requeues with > > > netif_schedule, so we could break after some limit. Of course, your > > > idea could be simpler and better, but if I could only see some code... > > > > What I mean is the extremely unlikely scenario of net_tx_action > > always failing on trylock because dev_deactivate has grabbed the > > lock to check whether net_tx_action has completed. > > Of course! I got it myself after responding and re-reading, sorry. So, > this is yet another doubt, but I still wonder why you don't attach > any code... (I'm currently trying to re-think this.) On the other hand... such a flag would be probably for one thing only. And if we would have a "netif_scheduled_without_xmitting" counter this could probably make 2 in 1? Jarek P.