On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:03:22PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:02 PM Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:26 AM Dave Jones
> > wrote:
> > > diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > > index 3219a2932463..4f9494381635 100644
> > > ---
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:02 PM Cong Wang wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:26 AM Dave Jones wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > index 3219a2932463..4f9494381635 100644
> > --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> > +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > @@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ void netp
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:26 AM Dave Jones wrote:
> diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> index 3219a2932463..4f9494381635 100644
> --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> @@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ void netpoll_send_skb_on_dev(struct netpoll *np, struct
> sk_buff *skb,
>
On 09/28/2018 11:24 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
> otherwise a trace like below is shown
>
> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 179 at net/core/dev.c:6567
> netdev_lower_get_next_private_rcu+0x34/0x40
> CPU: 2 PID: 179 Comm: kworker/u16:15 Not
Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
otherwise a trace like below is shown
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 179 at net/core/dev.c:6567
netdev_lower_get_next_private_rcu+0x34/0x40
CPU: 2 PID: 179 Comm: kworker/u16:15 Not tainted 4.19.0-rc5-backup+ #1
Workqueue: bond0 bond_mii_
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:31:39AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:25 AM Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 09:55:52AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:18 AM Dave Jones
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Callers of bond_for_each_slave_
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:25 AM Dave Jones wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 09:55:52AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:18 AM Dave Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
> > > otherwise a trace like below is shown
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 09:55:52AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:18 AM Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
> > otherwise a trace like below is shown
>
> So why not take rcu read lock in netpoll_send_skb_on_dev
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:18 AM Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
> otherwise a trace like below is shown
So why not take rcu read lock in netpoll_send_skb_on_dev() where
RCU is also assumed?
As I said, I can't explain why you didn't trig
Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
otherwise a trace like below is shown
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 179 at net/core/dev.c:6567
netdev_lower_get_next_private_rcu+0x34/0x40
CPU: 2 PID: 179 Comm: kworker/u16:15 Not tainted 4.19.0-rc5-backup+ #1
Workqueue: bond0 bond_mii_
From: Dave Jones
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:23:17 -0400
> Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
> otherwise a trace like below is shown
...
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones
Hey Dave, after some recent changes by Eric Dumazet this no longer
applies.
Please respin agai
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 1:08 PM Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
> otherwise a trace like below is shown
Interesting, netpoll_send_skb_on_dev() already assumes RCU read lock
when it calls rcu_dereference_bh()...
I wonder how it can't cat
Callers of bond_for_each_slave_rcu are expected to hold the rcu lock,
otherwise a trace like below is shown
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 179 at net/core/dev.c:6567
netdev_lower_get_next_private_rcu+0x34/0x40
CPU: 2 PID: 179 Comm: kworker/u16:15 Not tainted 4.19.0-rc5-backup+ #1
Workqueue: bond0 bond_mii_
13 matches
Mail list logo
