From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 10 20:26:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947D9106566C; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:26:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rysto32@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010E68FC1F; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbds12 with SMTP id ds12so191231wgb.31 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:26:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HchUOF2ktnwsVllqKKeHuNpaieOQVGJ2WyH7LT0kD8o=; b=KzJhEFZk+9MF22ewjaqFp8DZdGEGLl4nTyprh114I/PTvi19o2Zogroix01cllp2ph n5kFoW0m8rPvc01r+NRMbrJ+jU52S8zkKnrXgxItEJnEmOwYNS5Kpd+FNzhkFNWOfs98 PKCI1UDnyTmdjBRGLU1JSHQgmS1h7nPJz1NWhRnMR6ikD1oEWGfSl0lhovOukFr5PR0F /0w9TXTtsXLkZnq+f6PYNPt6qprLv/wlX8aDIGWGvJP0xjmFJzKpk177N1ndHGZOioZV 6KkPh8sPFISUakeONcms5U8lL+p+sCUUVF9BdLUzN+hNjQ7QAlufcnquKrgDtNBy0FaA UHLA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.101.8 with SMTP id fc8mr10149896wib.12.1334089561165; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.104.98 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:26:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120410065432.GJ9391@glebius.int.ru> References: <201203090930.q299UCPX057950@freefall.freebsd.org> <20120410065432.GJ9391@glebius.int.ru> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:26:01 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ryan Stone To: Gleb Smirnoff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/165863 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:26:02 -0000 2012/4/10 Gleb Smirnoff : > =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.