James Chapman wrote, On 02/26/2008 01:14 PM:
...
> Luckily, I'm in the lab where my two borrowed servers are today so I
> have access to their consoles. Hopefully I'll be able to find out why
> there are hanging. Btw, they don't hang if I disable irqs around the
> ppp_input() call.
Maybe you've
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:03:34PM +, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:14:26PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
> > there are hanging. Btw, they don't hang if I disable irqs around the
> > ppp_input() call.
>
> ...and disabling bh instead isn't enough, BTW?
I guess not: th
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:14:26PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/25/2008 02:39 PM:
>> ...
>>> Hmm... Wait a minute! But on the other hand David has written about
>>> his cons here, and it looks reasonable: this place would be fixed,
>>> but som
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/25/2008 02:39 PM:
...
Hmm... Wait a minute! But on the other hand David has written about
his cons here, and it looks reasonable: this place would be fixed,
but some others can start reports like this. Maybe, it's better to
analyze yet if it's
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/25/2008 02:39 PM:
...
> Hmm... Wait a minute! But on the other hand David has written about
> his cons here, and it looks reasonable: this place would be fixed,
> but some others can start reports like this. Maybe, it's better to
> analyze yet if it's really so hard to
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:39:48PM +, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> Maybe, it's better to
> analyze yet if it's really so hard to eliminate taking this lock
> on the xmit path?
BTW, I'm not sure if it helps, but this matters only for the sockets
which could be used (and locked) outside of pppol
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:05:08PM +, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:50PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> > Is this an acceptable solution? If so, I'll prepare and send official
> > patches.
>
> IMHO this should be acceptable because I can't see any reason for
> cha
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:50PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/21/2008 01:08 PM:
>> ...
>>
>>> Another, probably simpler way would be to move almost all pppol2tp_xmit
>> ...
>>
>> Actually, the simplest off all seems to be now this old idea t
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/21/2008 01:08 PM:
...
Another, probably simpler way would be to move almost all pppol2tp_xmit
...
Actually, the simplest off all seems to be now this old idea to maybe make
sk_dst_lock globally softirq immune. At least I think it's worth of
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/21/2008 01:08 PM:
...
> Another, probably simpler way would be to move almost all pppol2tp_xmit
...
Actually, the simplest off all seems to be now this old idea to maybe make
sk_dst_lock globally softirq immune. At least I think it's worth of testing,
to check for the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:53:56AM +, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> The _bh locking fixes in pppol2tp combined with your ppp_generic change
> solved that problem. So I then added data traffic into the mix (since
> this will happen in a real network) and found that lock
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:37:57PM +, James Chapman wrote:
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
(testing patch #1)
But I hope you tested with the fixed (take 2) version of this patch...
Yes I did. :)
But I just got another lockdep error (attached).
Since it's quite experiment
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:37:57PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
(testing patch #1)
>>
>> But I hope you tested with the fixed (take 2) version of this patch...
>
> Yes I did. :)
>
> But I just got another lockdep error (attached).
>
>> Since it's quite experimental (t
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
(testing patch #1)
But I hope you tested with the fixed (take 2) version of this patch...
Yes I did. :)
But I just got another lockdep error (attached).
Since it's quite experimental (testing) this patch could be wrong
as it is, but I hope it should show the proper
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:02:52PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
> I tried your ppp_generic patch with only the hlist_lock bh patch in
> pppol2tp and it seems to fix the ppp create/delete issue. However, when
> I added much more traffic into the test (flood pings over ppp interfaces
> while
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:09:24PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
Unfortunately the ISP's syslog stops. But I've been able to borrow
two Quad Xeon boxes and have reproduced the problem.
Here's a new version of the patch. The patch avoids disabling irqs
and fixes the sk_d
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:06:40AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> (testing patch #1)
SORRY!!! > take 2 (unlocking fixed)
---
drivers/net/ppp_generic.c | 39 +--
1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp_generi
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:09:24PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
> Unfortunately the ISP's syslog stops. But I've been able to borrow
> two Quad Xeon boxes and have reproduced the problem.
>
> Here's a new version of the patch. The patch avoids disabling irqs
> and fixes the sk_dst_get() usage th
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:30:47AM +, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> IMHO, just like I wrote earlier, the main problem is in ppp_generic(),
...or maybe ppp_generic.c? Whatever...
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PRO
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:03:12AM +, James Chapman wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:09:24 +
>>
>>> Here's a new version of the patch. The patch avoids disabling irqs
>>> and fixes the sk_dst_get() usage that DaveM mentione
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:09:24PM +, James Chapman wrote:
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
Hi,
It seems, this nice report is still uncomplete: could you check if
there could have been something more yet?
Unfortunately the ISP's syslog stops. But I've been able to borrow two
David Miller wrote:
From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:09:24 +
Here's a new version of the patch. The patch avoids disabling irqs
and fixes the sk_dst_get() usage that DaveM mentioned. But even with
this patch, lockdep still complains if hundreds of ppp sessio
From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:09:24 +
> Here's a new version of the patch. The patch avoids disabling irqs
> and fixes the sk_dst_get() usage that DaveM mentioned. But even with
> this patch, lockdep still complains if hundreds of ppp sessions are
> inserted
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:09:24PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems, this nice report is still uncomplete: could you check if
>> there could have been something more yet?
>
> Unfortunately the ISP's syslog stops. But I've been able to borrow two
> Quad Xeon
Hi,
It seems, this nice report is still uncomplete: could you check if
there could have been something more yet?
Thanks,
Jarek P.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:58:21AM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
> Here is a trace from when we had _bh locks.
>
> Feb 5 16:26:32 ===
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:00:03PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:58:21 +
>
> > Here is a trace from when we had _bh locks.
>
> The problem is that the pppol2tp code calls sk_dst_get() in software
> interrupt context and that i
From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:58:21 +
> Here is a trace from when we had _bh locks.
The problem is that the pppol2tp code calls sk_dst_get() in software
interrupt context and that is not allowed.
sk_dst_get() grabs sk->sk_dst_lock without any BH enabling o
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:58:21AM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
> Here is a trace from when we had _bh locks.
Very nice...
...But since it's quite long, and if you don't know all these paths
this could take some time, maybe one question: so if lockdep got these
locks right (sometimes it can be
David Miller wrote:
From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:41:18 +
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible when
creating/deleting lots of sessions w
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:42:12PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:49:24PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
>>> ...
Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:41:18PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
>> ...
>>> Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible when
>>> creating/deleting lots of sessions while passing data. The
From: James Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:41:18 +
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> > ...
> >> Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible when
> >> creating/deleting lots of sessions while
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:49:24PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible when
creating/deleting lots of sessions while passing data. The lock is bein
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible when
creating/deleting lots of sessions while passing data. The lock is being
acquired for read and write in softirq contexts.
Is there a
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:49:24PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> ...
> > Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible when
> > creating/deleting lots of sessions while passing data. The lock is being
> > acquir
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:35PM +, James Chapman wrote:
...
> Below is example output from lockdep. The oops is reproducible when
> creating/deleting lots of sessions while passing data. The lock is being
> acquired for read and write in softirq contexts.
>
> Is there a better way to fix
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
James Chapman wrote, On 02/11/2008 10:22 AM:
Fix locking issues in the pppol2tp driver which can cause a kernel
crash on SMP boxes when hundreds of L2TP sessions are created/deleted
simultaneously (ISP environment). The driver was violating read_lock()
and write_lock() sc
James Chapman wrote, On 02/11/2008 10:22 AM:
> Fix locking issues in the pppol2tp driver which can cause a kernel
> crash on SMP boxes when hundreds of L2TP sessions are created/deleted
> simultaneously (ISP environment). The driver was violating read_lock()
> and write_lock() scheduling rules so
Fix locking issues in the pppol2tp driver which can cause a kernel
crash on SMP boxes when hundreds of L2TP sessions are created/deleted
simultaneously (ISP environment). The driver was violating read_lock()
and write_lock() scheduling rules so we now consistently use the _irq
variants of the lock
39 matches
Mail list logo
