On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 08:57:57PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:07:56AM -0600, Matt Mackall ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 01:55:19PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:21:57AM -0800, Andrew Morton ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > > > [2059664.615816] __iptables__: init4 IN=ppp0 OUT=ppp0 WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:139 local_bh_enable()
> > > > > [2059664.620535] [<80120364>] local_bh_enable+0x3c/0x97
> > >
> > > > > [2059664.620657] [<8011c205>] __call_console_drivers+0x61/0x6d
> > > > > [2059664.620669] [<8011c3fc>] release_console_sem+0x164/0x1bf
> > > > > [2059664.620679] [<8011c81f>] vprintk+0x27a/0x2ff
> > >
> > > > If that trace is to be beieved we're doing nefilter stuff on packets which
> > > > were sent across netconsole.
> > > >
> > > > This probably isn't anything the netfilter guys have thought about. And
> > > > probably we don't want them to. Is there some simple way in which we can
> > > > exempt netconsole from netfilter processing?
> > >
> > > This is not about netfilter, but about freeing skb in interrupt context,
> > > which is not allowed, and in interrupt skbs are queued to be freed in softirq,
> > > but netcnsole wants to flush softirq freeing queue. That is a question: why?
> >
> > My memory here is hazy, but I think this exists to rescue netconsole
> > in low-memory situations. This bit originated with Ingo, so maybe he
> > can recall.
> >
> > Netpoll can process an arbitrary number of skbs inside a single
> > interrupt. Think sysrq-t at one packet per line or kgdboe where the
> > entire trace session can happen inside one very long interrupt.
> >
> > Perhaps we can refine this to mark netpoll's skbs (perhaps with
> > ->destructor?) and delete only skbs we own. As these are never passed
> > through any of the other route/xfrm/filter code, they should be safe
> > to delete even in irq context, yes?
> >
> > > Removing zap_completion_queue() from find_skb() will fix the warning,
> > > but I'm not sure this is a correct fix. I've added Matt to the Cc list.
> >
> > Care to try the sysrq-t or OOM message tests?
>
> We basically can not free skbs there - if it is interrupt context and
> we are freeing some skb with destructor we will catch the warning anyway.
Perhaps I'm missing some context here. We don't free skbs with
destructors in irq context in zap_completion_queue. We reinsert them on the
completion list. We do this by calling dev_kfree_skb_any.
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.
> 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.
> I think we can drop skbs _without_ destructor from the queue though in
> that conditions given that we actually need only one.
Huh?
--
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
