Thanks for your fix, Flavio!
On 06/08/10 08:37, Flavio Leitner wrote:
>> There may not be another timer or workqueue able to execute after the
>> printk() we're trying to emit. We may never get to that point.
>
> What if in the netpoll, before we push the skb to the driver, we check
> for a bit saying that it's already pushing another skb. In this case,
> queue the new skb inside of netpoll and soon as the first call returns
> and try to clear the bit, it will send the next skb?
>
> printk("message 1")
> ...
> netconsole called
> netpoll sets the flag bit
> pushes to the bonding driver which does another printk("message 2")
> netconsole called again
> netpoll checks for the flag, queue the message, returns.
> so, bonding can finish up to send the first message
> netpoll is about to return, checks for new queued messages, and pushes them.
> bonding finishes up to send the second message
> ....
>
> No deadlocks, skbs are ordered and still under the same opportunity
> to send something. Does it sound acceptable?
> It's off the top of my head, so probably this idea has some problems.
>
I am not a net expert, I am not sure if this solution really addresses
David's concern, but it makes sense for me.
>
>> Fix the locking in the drivers or layers that cause the issue instead
>> of breaking netconsole.
>
> Someday, somewhere, I know because I did this before, someone will
> use a debugging printk() and will see the entire box hanging with
> absolutely no message in any console because of this problem.
> I'm not saying that fixing driver isn't the right way to go but
> it seems not enough to me.
Well, I think netconsole is not alone, other console drivers could
have the same problem, printk() is not always available in some
situation like this.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
