DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=p/YEDtNsT48oQK/liRzEglrdzYaT/Eo4TfhB9WcFVyLehIGPvyjFlEkg3QCxRc7EpP
         Zqgqo4mBqPs21/1IUZLP0sOEvJu0XrAltcQ7mkRa+RgSimqmYBtiIXA5ZO+qx6mGalce
         zwrO4B9afKpBtzzRh3vZRmcfxULnHxx6OuQQM=
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:37:57 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net, netdev@axxeo.de, peterz@infradead.org,
       Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, kaber@trash.net,
       torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330
	__netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()
Message-ID: <20080727203757.GA2527@ami.dom.local>
References: <20080725200137.GC3107@ami.dom.local> <20080726.021846.236624483.davem@davemloft.net> <20080726131838.GA2873@ami.dom.local> <20080726.173434.48036095.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080726.173434.48036095.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1235
Lines: 31

On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 05:34:34PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:18:38 +0200
> 
> > I guess some additional synchronization will be added yet to prevent
> > parallel freeze and especially unfreeze.
> 
> Yes, that could be a problem.  Using test_and_set_bit() can
> guard the freezing sequence itself, but it won't handle
> letting two threads of control freeze and unfreeze safely
> without a reference count.
> 
> We want this thing to be able to be used flexbly, which means
> we can't just assume that this is a short code sequence and
> the unfreeze will come quickly.  That pretty much rules
> out using a new lock around the operation or anything
> like that.
> 
> So I guess we could replace the state bit with a reference
> count.  It doesn't even need to be atomic since it is set
> and tested under dev_queue->_xmit_lock
 
Looks like enough to me. (Probably it could even share space with
the state.)

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/