From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: Linux 3.0 release Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:26:29 +0200 Message-ID: <20110722212629.GA10833@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <4E29CB5B.4040408@unsolicited.net> <4E29D326.7070403@candelatech.com> <20110722133220.0baf2199@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ben Greear , Linus Torvalds , David , Tejun Heo , Linux Kernel Mailing List , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110722133220.0baf2199@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger : > This a regression which probably began with > > commit e22bee782b3b00bd4534ae9b1c5fb2e8e6573c5c > Author: Tejun Heo > Date: Tue Jun 29 10:07:14 2010 +0200 > > workqueue: implement concurrency managed dynamic worker pool > > Before that it was perfectly legal for link watch code to > call schedule_delayed_work from IRQ. This should be allowable; > the code to manage the worker pool should handle it. I beg to differ: see Ben's first report (http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2011/05/04/183). ^^ One of the code path in the netif_carrier code leads it to try and disable a late workqueue to reenable it immediately (mod_workqueue anyone ?): netif_carrier_on -> linkwatch_fire_event -> linkwatch_schedule_work -> cancel_delayed_work -> del_timer_sync The del_timer_sync has been here for ages. Afaiks it is not a new pool code nor a schedule_delayed_work only problem. -- Ueimor