Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760651AbZAOHMk (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:12:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757898AbZAOHM1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:12:27 -0500 Received: from mail.bigtelecom.ru ([87.255.0.61]:56096 "EHLO mail.bigtelecom.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753405AbZAOHMZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:12:25 -0500 Message-ID: <496EE1D4.6010709@bigtelecom.ru> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:12:20 +0300 From: Badalian Vyacheslav User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jarek Poplawski CC: Chris Caputo , Peter Zijlstra , Denys Fedoryschenko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: deadlocks if use htb References: <20081010090426.GA6054@ff.dom.local> <20090114063909.GA4234@ff.dom.local> <200901141417.58667.denys@visp.net.lb> <1231937404.14825.4.camel@laptop> <20090115065322.GA4190@ff.dom.local> In-Reply-To: <20090115065322.GA4190@ff.dom.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2350 Lines: 57 > 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; > > Hello all. I also can say this, maybe its help: At old kernels my servers do 100% soft interupt if traffic more 600mbs. Without your patches at new kernel i get crash only at heavy network load PCs (more then 400mbs-500mbs). Servers that get 100-200 mbs not crashed long time. I remember that i not test patch #4, because you sat what its only another way to temporary fix and mainline problem in hrtimer , but i try turn on HiRes and Dynamic Tics in kernel - its not help for me. Best Regals. Slavon -- 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/