From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tilman Schmidt Subject: Re: NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:28:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4AD2E8C8.4060205@imap.cc> References: <20091011095217.GA2200@darkstar> <1255255735.4095.53.camel@johannes.local> <4AD1BF06.3050103@phoenixsoftware.de> <1255261251.4095.143.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Dave Young , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-wireless , "David S. Miller" , linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras To: Johannes Berg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1255261251.4095.143.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [CCing PPP people] Am 11.10.2009 13:40 schrieb Johannes Berg: > On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 13:18 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >=20 >> Can you explain a bit more what that message is about? >> I am encountering it in a completely different context >> (PPP over ISDN) [...] >=20 > Basically, calling netif_rx() with softirqs enabled. AFAICS that would have to be the netif_rx() call in ppp_receive_nonmp_frame() [drivers/net/ppp_generic.c#L1791], called (via others) from the tasklet work function ppp_sync_process() [drivers/net/ppp_synctty.c#L545]. Should that be changed to the "if (in_interrupt()) netif_rx(skb) else netif_rx_ni(skb)" stanza from the linux.kernel.wireless.general thread then? Thanks, Tilman - -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Unge=C3=B6ffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe R=C3=BCckseite) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFK0ujIQ3+did9BuFsRAtGBAJ9rj2pyQZ75ZKTipLhpICqA3ZvTdQCdHQs/ RmdeOT3TuPZykXJxcHLJCzU=3D =3D87DI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----