From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs. dev_deactivate() race Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080821.005250.117238212.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080821061024.GA721@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080821064941.GA2764@ff.dom.local> <20080821071634.GA1269@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jarkao2@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:32796 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754412AbYHUHwv (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:52:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080821071634.GA1269@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Herbert Xu Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:16:34 +1000 > Actually, why do we even keep a netdev_queue pointer in a qdisc? > A given qdisc can be used by multiple queues (which is why the > lock was moved into the qdisc in the first place). > > How about keeping a pointer directly to the root qdisc plus a > pointer to the netdev (which seems to be the only other use for > qdisc->dev_queue)? That way there won't be any confusion as to > whether we want the sleeping or non-sleeping qdisc. Not a bad idea at all. The reason it's there is a left-over from earlier designs of my multiqueue stuff, I thought we'd always multiplex the qdiscs to be per-queue. But once Patrick showed me we couldn't do that, we now have shared qdiscs. If I get a chance I'll work on this. But to be honest given Linus's temperment right now we're only going to be able to merge one-liners to fix these kinds of problems and anything more serious is going to be for net-next-2.6 only.