On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:20:00AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:13:01 +0200
Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
[My mail provider is down, so responding manually]
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up
completely.
I hooked up a serial console, and found this..
u32 classifier
Performance counters on
input device check
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 04:53:04PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:07:04 +0200
...
Although the HTB bug is post-2.6.18, the other issue has been
around for a long time.
Thus I'll need to submit the second patch to -stable, but I
[My mail provider is down, so responding manually]
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
[NET_SCHED]: Fix fallout from dev-qdisc RCU change
Sorry again but I can't abstain from some doubts:
...
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 14de297..4d891be 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
[My mail provider is down, so responding manually]
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
[NET_SCHED]: Fix fallout from dev-qdisc RCU change
Sorry again but I can't abstain from some doubts:
...
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:13:01 +0200
Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
[My mail provider is down, so responding manually]
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
[NET_SCHED]: Fix fallout from dev-qdisc RCU change
Sorry again
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 05:20:34PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
Yes, that looks plausible. Can you try making those changes and see if
the warning is gone?
I think this
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
Sorry for my not humble and simplistic opinion, but I'd dare
to remind you are changing stable version and even without
this lockups this patch would look very serious. Why don't
try to restore not-rcu version of qdisc_destroy which looks
not lot to do.
I'm trying to
Dave Jones wrote:
With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up
completely.
I hooked up a serial console, and found this..
u32 classifier
Performance counters on
input device check on
Actions configured
BUG: warning at
Dave Jones wrote:
With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up
completely.
I hooked up a serial console, and found this..
u32 classifier
Performance counters on
input device check on
Actions configured
BUG: warning at
27 Eyl 2006 Çar 13:14 tarihinde şunları yazmıştınız:
Dave Jones wrote:
With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up
completely. I hooked up a serial console, and found this..
u32 classifier
Performance counters on
input device check on
Actions
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:07:04 +0200
Dave Jones wrote:
With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up
completely.
I hooked up a serial console, and found this..
u32 classifier
Performance counters on
input
Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
Yes, that looks plausible. Can you try making those changes and see if
the warning is gone?
I think this points to a bigger brokeness caused by the move of
dev-qdisc to RCU. It means destruction of filters and actions doesn't
necessarily happens in
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
Yes, that looks plausible. Can you try making those changes and see if
the warning is gone?
I think this points to a bigger brokeness caused by the move of
dev-qdisc to
On 24-09-2006 23:29, Dave Jones wrote:
=
[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
-
inconsistent {softirq-on-R} - {in-softirq-W} usage.
swapper/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[2]:HE1:SE0] takes:
(police_lock){-+--}, at: [f8d304fd]
On Mon, 2006-25-09 at 14:43 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
It's probably 2.6.18 and should change a little now (git4) but
IMHO main problem stays: it looks tcf_act_police_locate in
act_police.c was preempted in read_lock (tcf_police_lookup)
- now the same is possible in tcf_hash_lookup. So
On 25-09-2006 14:47, jamal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-25-09 at 14:43 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
It's probably 2.6.18 and should change a little now (git4) but
IMHO main problem stays: it looks tcf_act_police_locate in
act_police.c was preempted in read_lock (tcf_police_lookup)
- now the same is
jamal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-25-09 at 14:43 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
It's probably 2.6.18 and should change a little now (git4) but
IMHO main problem stays: it looks tcf_act_police_locate in
act_police.c was preempted in read_lock (tcf_police_lookup)
- now the same is possible in
=
[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
-
inconsistent {softirq-on-R} - {in-softirq-W} usage.
swapper/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[2]:HE1:SE0] takes:
(police_lock){-+--}, at: [f8d304fd] tcf_police_destroy+0x24/0x8f [act_police]
{softirq-on-R} state
19 matches
Mail list logo
