Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761389AbZAOGxm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:53:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755856AbZAOGxb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:53:31 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f31.google.com ([209.85.219.31]:65259 "EHLO mail-ew0-f31.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755652AbZAOGxa (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:53:30 -0500 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=kBcnm07ubS9+x1wj7hzI+0VcJoNattFO+UsJozcSoMu5UvVBT+j3LvHU+v9m8DtcbV ceOvcPr79rE6ll+4AQPlJpguqVdFsQ6K46+Q22ts16Qds86QOhV30wuNycCRBAC4UoiT Jrku7/897gvKeJEI1cUrIj15YnMRCefUSfhNc= Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:53:22 +0000 From: Jarek Poplawski To: Chris Caputo Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Denys Fedoryschenko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Badalian Vyacheslav , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: deadlocks if use htb Message-ID: <20090115065322.GA4190@ff.dom.local> References: <20081010090426.GA6054@ff.dom.local> <20090114063909.GA4234@ff.dom.local> <200901141417.58667.denys@visp.net.lb> <1231937404.14825.4.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1765 Lines: 42 On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:02:04PM +0000, Chris Caputo wrote: ... > That said, I would not recommend just the three for -stable unless they > get a much wider amount of testing, on multiple platforms. I don't see > that as likely to happen, plus Peter says they are incomplete, so maybe it > is just best to recommend that 2.6.28 users getting crashes while using > HTB try these specific patches at first, and then the rest of the patches > if they do not work. The main problem is my patches, at least the tested ones, harm htb's exactness, and I doubt I could convince anybody to merege them, at least before your case. It was only reported by two users here (plus one more on private), and looked like something very rare. After your report it looks much more necessary. If there is nothing better, I can recommend it, but IMHO the best candidate for this is the testing patch #4 from this thread, which alas wasn't even tested... So, Chris, if you could give it a try in the meantime (without any other patches)? Thanks, Jarek P. (resend testing patch #4 - for 2.6.27 or 2.6.28) --- diff -Nurp a2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c b2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c --- a2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c 2008-12-11 08:16:16.000000000 +0000 +++ b2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c 2008-12-15 10:44:32.000000000 +0000 @@ -924,6 +924,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *htb_dequeue(struc } } sch->qstats.overlimits++; + qdisc_watchdog_cancel(&q->watchdog); qdisc_watchdog_schedule(&q->watchdog, next_event); fin: return skb; -- 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/