* Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs?
@ 2013-01-29 20:00 Ben Greear
2013-01-29 20:21 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2013-01-29 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
I think there was a proposal to change it to schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
some time ago, but that change never made it upstream (at least not in 3.7.5)?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs?
2013-01-29 20:00 Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs? Ben Greear
@ 2013-01-29 20:21 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-29 20:24 ` Ben Greear
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2013-01-29 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: netdev
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:00 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> I think there was a proposal to change it to schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> some time ago, but that change never made it upstream (at least not in 3.7.5)?
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
Honestly we should fix the bug at this point, not hide it.
We could use msleep(2500) to make sure people will complain ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs?
2013-01-29 20:21 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2013-01-29 20:24 ` Ben Greear
2013-01-29 20:31 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2013-01-29 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: netdev
On 01/29/2013 12:21 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:00 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>> I think there was a proposal to change it to schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
>> some time ago, but that change never made it upstream (at least not in 3.7.5)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
>>
>
> Honestly we should fix the bug at this point, not hide it.
>
> We could use msleep(2500) to make sure people will complain ;)
Well, few will notice that either, or at least are unlikely
to know what to blame.
If we should just never reach that code, maybe a WARN_ON_ONCE() when
we do?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs?
2013-01-29 20:24 ` Ben Greear
@ 2013-01-29 20:31 ` David Miller
2013-01-29 20:45 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2013-01-29 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: greearb; +Cc: eric.dumazet, netdev
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:24:19 -0800
> On 01/29/2013 12:21 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:00 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> I think there was a proposal to change it to
>>> schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
>>> some time ago, but that change never made it upstream (at least not in
>>> 3.7.5)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>>
>>
>> Honestly we should fix the bug at this point, not hide it.
>>
>> We could use msleep(2500) to make sure people will complain ;)
>
> Well, few will notice that either, or at least are unlikely
> to know what to blame.
>
> If we should just never reach that code, maybe a WARN_ON_ONCE() when
> we do?
If you only notice some time in the future that something has hung in
this state, the original message could be lost. Therefore, I
definitely prefer that this thing keeps barking into the logs
periodically.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs?
2013-01-29 20:31 ` David Miller
@ 2013-01-29 20:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-29 20:47 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2013-01-29 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller; +Cc: greearb, netdev
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 15:31 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> If you only notice some time in the future that something has hung in
> this state, the original message could be lost. Therefore, I
> definitely prefer that this thing keeps barking into the logs
> periodically.
Not sure we need the full stack, as it probably contains no useful
context / information at this point.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs?
2013-01-29 20:45 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2013-01-29 20:47 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2013-01-29 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: eric.dumazet; +Cc: greearb, netdev
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:45:30 -0800
> On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 15:31 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> If you only notice some time in the future that something has hung in
>> this state, the original message could be lost. Therefore, I
>> definitely prefer that this thing keeps barking into the logs
>> periodically.
>
> Not sure we need the full stack, as it probably contains no useful
> context / information at this point.
That's true.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-29 20:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-29 20:00 Can we replace the msleep(250) in dev.c netdev_wait_allrefs? Ben Greear
2013-01-29 20:21 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-29 20:24 ` Ben Greear
2013-01-29 20:31 ` David Miller
2013-01-29 20:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-29 20:47 ` David Miller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).