On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 08:32:33AM -0400, Michal Ostrowski wrote:
> Having looked at the code for locking sockets I am concerned that the
> locking procedures for tcp may be wrong. __release_sock releases the
> socket spinlock before calling sk->backlog_rcv() (== tcp_v4_do_rcv),
> however the co
Marcell Gal writes:
> Hi,
>
> This patch solved the problem. Should be ready for inclusion in 2.4.
> No more 'Scheduling in interrupt' under those conditions.
> Thanx for the thoughts, solution and the amazing speed.
> You guys are doing a really great job!
>
Alexey pointed out a much ni
Hi,
This patch solved the problem. Should be ready for inclusion in 2.4.
No more 'Scheduling in interrupt' under those conditions.
Thanx for the thoughts, solution and the amazing speed.
You guys are doing a really great job!
I hope we can get the earlier mentioned NULL ptr in all_ppp_units list
Marcell GAL wrote:
>
> int pppoe_backlog_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> lock_sock(sk);
> pppoe_rcv_core(sk, skb);
> release_sock(sk);
> return 0;
> }
>
The backlog_rcv() method is called inside local_bh_disable()
and so cannot call lock_sock().
Marcell GAL writes:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Once upon a time on my
> x86 UP box, UP kernel 2.4.4, (64M ram, 260M swap)
> http://home.sch.bme.hu/~cell/.config
> I hit a reproducable "Scheduling in interrupt" BUG.
> Also reproduced with 128M ram and low memory press
Hi Guys,
Once upon a time on my
x86 UP box, UP kernel 2.4.4, (64M ram, 260M swap)
http://home.sch.bme.hu/~cell/.config
I hit a reproducable "Scheduling in interrupt" BUG.
Also reproduced with 128M ram and low memory pressure
(first I suspected it is related to swapping)
Running lo
6 matches
Mail list logo
