Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:26:01 -0400
From:      Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>
To:        Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: kern/165863
Message-ID:  <CAFMmRNzqG_AwyvPnFid4XapWTmJYNU-50WUDdPsJpsRdo1F0bw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120410065432.GJ9391@glebius.int.ru>
References:  <201203090930.q299UCPX057950@freefall.freebsd.org> <CAFMmRNwWZFzbqG7ejdEqsMTKzxxZv-ZbGGJGr98mYcE_ku7xMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120410065432.GJ9391@glebius.int.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2012/4/10 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>:
> =A0Thanks, Ryan!
(snip)
> Looks okay from my viewpoint. Have you stress tested it? My snap patch
> definitely had problems, AFAIR.
>
> If this patch fixes panics observed by kern/165863 and passes stress
> testing, then it should be committed ASAP, and shouldn't depend on
> IPv6 part.
>
> --
> Totus tuus, Glebius.

Hm, I was all ready to commit this, but I've realized that there is a
problem.  According to callout_reset(9), any caller to callout_reset
must hold any mutex associated with the callout, but the two places
that call callout_reset on the la_timer are not done with the
if_afdata_lock held, and changing that looks to be non-trivial without
making the if_afdata_lock a huge contention point.

At this point I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMmRNzqG_AwyvPnFid4XapWTmJYNU-50WUDdPsJpsRdo1F0bw>