> > > - rcu_read_unlock(); > > > spin_unlock_bh(&ar->txqs_lock); > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > I'm no RCU expert but this isn't making any sense. Maybe it changes > > timings on your kernel so that it hides the real problem? > > I'm not sure this fixed anything or not, it just seemed weird so I > changed it. > > I was hoping someone that understood rcu locking would comment... > RCU is no "locking". The sooner you get over that notion, the better. This therefore make no sense whatsoever. In fact, you want to keep the RCU protected section *small*, so having the spinlock inside hurts overall system performance. johannes
