Return-path: Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:56530 "EHLO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753586AbZJUSzr (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:55:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4ADF5710.4030505@imap.cc> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:46:40 +0200 From: Tilman Schmidt MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jarek Poplawski CC: David Miller , johannes@sipsolutions.net, 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 Subject: Re: NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08 References: <4AD31213.6020006@imap.cc> <20091015114052.GA9870@ff.dom.local> <4AD76184.6030900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4AD76184.6030900@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5AFD4289CAEBB63DCDBBFEB4" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5AFD4289CAEBB63DCDBBFEB4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 15.10.2009 19:53 Jarek Poplawski wrote: > Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 10/15/2009 01:40 PM: >=20 >> On 12-10-2009 13:25, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >>> I have encountered the message in the subject during a test of >>> the Gigaset CAPI driver, and would like to determine whether >>> it's a bug in the driver, a bug somewhere else, or no bug at >>> all. The test scenario was PPP over ISDN with pppd+capiplugin. >>> In an alternative scenario, also PPP over ISDN but with >>> smpppd+capidrv, the message did not occur. I'm sorry, I had confused the two cases. The message occurs in the smpppd+capidrv scenario, not with pppd+capiplugin. >>> Johannes' answer pointed me to the netif_rx() function. >>> The Gigaset driver itself doesn't call that function at all. >>> In the scenario where I saw the message, it was the SYNC_PPP >>> line discipline that did. This analysis was therefore wrong. It would be the netif_rx() call towards the end of isdn_ppp_push_higher() in drivers/isdn/i4l/isdn_ppp.c L1177. >> Anyway, I agree with Michael Buesch there is no reason to waste time >> for tracking all netif_rx vs netif_rx_ni uses, and it seems we could >> avoid it by using the "proper" version of raise_softirq_irqoff() in >> __napi_schedule(). Could anybody try if I'm not wrong? >> >> net/core/dev.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c >> index 28b0b9e..7fc4009 100644 >> --- a/net/core/dev.c >> +++ b/net/core/dev.c >> @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ void __napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *n) >> =20 >> local_irq_save(flags); >> list_add_tail(&n->poll_list, &__get_cpu_var(softnet_data).poll_list)= ; >> - __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ); >> + raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ); >> local_irq_restore(flags); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__napi_schedule); I have tested your patch and I can confirm that it fixes the messages. I have not noticed any ill effects. Thanks, Tilman --=20 Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Unge=F6ffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe R=FCckseite) --------------enig5AFD4289CAEBB63DCDBBFEB4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFK31cZQ3+did9BuFsRAlWeAJ93rbAD2D/9sgXqn7IkoKQndzDfEQCeMlEL Z4A+PxVoA1bD0gc2OvUqD/k= =yorf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5AFD4289CAEBB63DCDBBFEB4--