Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:20:33 -0600 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.23 WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:139 local_bh_enable() |
| |
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:15:24PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:59:43PM -0600, Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com) wrote: > > So I'd be surprised if that was a problem. But I can imagine having > > problems for skbs without destructors which run into one of these in > > __kfree_skb: > > > > dst_release > > secpath_put > > nf_conntrack_put > > nf_conntrack_put_reasm > > nf_bridge_put > > > > ..some or all of which assume a softirq context. > > bridging is ok, others require softirq context. > I've sent a patch (the last one should be ok) to guard against xfrm and > connection tracking. > > > > No matter if we are under memory pressure or whatever - it is not > > > allowed - a lot of skbs are supposed to be freed in softirq context, > > > that is why dev_kfree_skb_any() exists. > > > > Some skbs we definitely -can- free in irq context. The only ones we > > care about are the ones generated by netpoll. If there's a reason you > > think netpoll's own skbs can't be freed, please describe it. > > Only some and to distinguish them we can not use destructor - if it is > set (even empty function) it will fire an alarm.
Yep, please look at the patch I just posted.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |