Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752682AbZJWQdV (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:33:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752613AbZJWQdR (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:33:17 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:38125 "EHLO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752535AbZJWQdP (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:33:15 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: aDCjLhLZLcQO6RCOZ/TMRJ1L2lciHvIvaTY4Mn6YeT+E 1256315597 Message-ID: <4AE1DAC9.5040603@imap.cc> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:33:13 +0200 From: Tilman Schmidt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-AT; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090825 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: Jarek Poplawski , David Miller , hidave.darkstar@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, isdn4linux , i4ldeveloper , Karsten Keil Subject: Re: NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08 References: <4AD31213.6020006@imap.cc> <20091015114052.GA9870@ff.dom.local> <4AD76184.6030900@gmail.com> <4ADF5710.4030505@imap.cc> <4AE0ECCE.2020407@imap.cc> <1256304869.12174.20.camel@johannes.local> <4AE1BD3D.3020007@imap.cc> <1256308311.12174.38.camel@johannes.local> In-Reply-To: <1256308311.12174.38.camel@johannes.local> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2454 Lines: 66 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Johannes Berg schrieb: > On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 16:27 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> Johannes Berg schrieb: >>> So you've verified that the entire i4l stack can cope with being called >>> twice on the same CPU, from different contexts? >> What makes you think so? > > I thought I'd explained this in my other email. *sigh* [snip] Ah, I see. You misunderstood my posting. I did not propose that patch as a definitive and verified solution, but rather as a request for comments from the people who know and maintain the code in question. I thought that was clear from the facts that - - I didn't include "[PATCH]" in the subject line - - I didn't add a "Signed-off-by" line - - I wrote "fixed the messages", not "solved the problem" - - I explicitly wrote "Comments?" and "Adding i4l people to CC" Apparently all that was still not clear enough. Sorry about that. So let me try to make my concern as explicit as possible: - - The patch I posted had the effect that the test which reliably triggered the local_softirq_pending message before did not do so anymore. - - To me, this seems to indicate that the netif_rx(skb) call in line 1177 of source file drivers/isdn/i4l/isdn_ppp.c is indeed involved in the problem. - - Now I'm asking people who know more than myself about the ramifications of that message (ie., you) and/or the code I narrowed it down to (ie., the ISDN4Linux maintainers - which is why I added them to the CC list) to have a look and determine how to fix the problem properly. - - This would of course include, in finis, the verification you mistakenly assumed I might have done already. I hope that's clear enough. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, Tilman - -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFK4drJQ3+did9BuFsRAmstAJ94UF/LupINlYpjbxzz9xoiN5w34wCfflRz YfR/fXt3HasrxUSP29REOnE= =VQ/C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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/