On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 09:30:24AM -0800, Auke Kok wrote: > >Even if the total lock time can be reduced, it's possible that interrupt > >handler is executed while the interrupted code is still holding the > >semaphore. > >I think your method only decrease the frequency of this problem. > >Why does reducing the lock time solve this problem? > > there are several problems here that need addressing. It's not acceptable > for our driver to wait up to 15 seconds, and we can (presumably) reduce it > to milliseconds, so that would help a lot. We should in no case at all hold > it for any period longer than (give or take) half a second, so working > towards that is a very good step in the right direction. > > Adding the timer task back may also help, as we are no longer trying to > aqcuire the sw_fw_semaphore in interrupt context, but we removed it for a > reason, and I need to dig up what reason this exactly was before we can > revert it. Jesse might know, so I'll talk to him. But this will not fix the > fact that the semaphore is held for a long time :)
Timer tasks that reschedule themselves are a pain. The watchdog timer task had a couple of race conditions that were thought to be better fixed by removing it all together. Please, let's not go down that road again! Check out what you have to say about it, Auke. ;) http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg03656.html Shaw - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
