From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri Jan 17 09:46:16 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A16228DBA for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:46:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c17:6c4b::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47zbmR5Yjqz4JBy; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:46:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from hps2020.home.selasky.org (unknown [62.141.129.235]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 101F026033F; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:46:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Strange logic in r336438 To: Eric van Gyzen , davidcs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: From: Hans Petter Selasky Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:46:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47zbmR5Yjqz4JBy X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of hps@selasky.org designates 2a01:4f8:c17:6c4b::2 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hps@selasky.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.94 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:mail.turbocat.net:c]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[selasky.org]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-2.65)[ip: (-9.21), ipnet: 2a01:4f8::/29(-2.48), asn: 24940(-1.52), country: DE(-0.02)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:46:16 -0000 On 2020-01-17 00:31, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > I was just reviewing r336438: > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=336438 > > In bxe_interrupt_detach(), the nested loops over sc->num_queues don't > look right.  We drain the taskqueues for queue 0, but then free the > taskqueues for queues 1-N without draining them.  Should the second loop > come _after_ the first loop, instead of _in_ it? > Hi, taskqueue_free() will do some kind of last minute draining, if you look at the implementation. However if you want to ensure all tasks are completed, taskqueue_drain() before free() is preferred. --HPS