Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> but this one should be inactive (not plugged into the network). >>> Should i try to get a debug print out of the actual 'weight' and >>> 'work' integers, and of the n->poll function address? >> ok, i've added such a patch. >> >> looking at the dev.c code - can napi_struct->weight be zero >> legitimately? If yes then the 0 gets passed to the driver and the >> driver would return 1 - violating the assertion. > > update: > > [ 186.635916] WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:2166 net_rx_action() > [ 186.641351] [] net_rx_action+0x145/0x1b0 > [ 186.646191] [] __do_softirq+0x42/0x90 > [ 186.650784] [] do_softirq+0x26/0x30 > [ 186.655202] [] local_bh_enable+0x48/0xa0 > [ 186.660055] [] lock_sock_nested+0xa0/0xc0 > [ 186.664995] [] tcp_recvmsg+0x16/0xbc0 > [ 186.669588] [] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x27b/0x520 > [ 186.676001] [] sock_common_recvmsg+0x45/0x70 > [ 186.681202] [] sock_aio_read+0x11f/0x140 > [ 186.686054] [] do_sync_read+0xc6/0x110 > [ 186.690735] [] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 > [ 186.696280] [] net_tx_action+0x3c/0xe0 > [ 186.700961] [] vfs_read+0x132/0x140 > [ 186.705378] [] sys_read+0x41/0x70 > [ 186.709625] [] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x89 > [ 186.714651] ======================= > [ 186.718210] work: 65, weight: 64 > [ 186.721414] ->poll: (nv_napi_poll+0x0/0x760) > > so nv_napi_poll() returned with 65. How is that possible? Ah ...: > > (rx_processed_cnt++ < limit)) { > > that should be: > > (++rx_processed_cnt < limit)) { > > right? Find the fix below. > > Ingo > > --------------------> > Subject: forcedeth: fix the NAPI poll function > From: Ingo Molnar > > fix the forcedeth NAPI poll function to not emit this warning: > > [ 186.635916] WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:2166 net_rx_action() > [ 186.641351] [] net_rx_action+0x145/0x1b0 > [ 186.646191] [] __do_softirq+0x42/0x90 > [ 186.650784] [] do_softirq+0x26/0x30 > [ 186.655202] [] local_bh_enable+0x48/0xa0 > [ 186.660055] [] lock_sock_nested+0xa0/0xc0 > [ 186.664995] [] tcp_recvmsg+0x16/0xbc0 > [ 186.669588] [] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x27b/0x520 > [ 186.676001] [] sock_common_recvmsg+0x45/0x70 > [ 186.681202] [] sock_aio_read+0x11f/0x140 > [ 186.686054] [] do_sync_read+0xc6/0x110 > [ 186.690735] [] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 > [ 186.696280] [] net_tx_action+0x3c/0xe0 > [ 186.700961] [] vfs_read+0x132/0x140 > [ 186.705378] [] sys_read+0x41/0x70 > [ 186.709625] [] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x89 > [ 186.714651] ======================= > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar > --- > drivers/net/forcedeth.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Index: linux/drivers/net/forcedeth.c > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/drivers/net/forcedeth.c > +++ linux/drivers/net/forcedeth.c > @@ -2274,7 +2274,7 @@ static int nv_rx_process(struct net_devi > > while((np->get_rx.orig != np->put_rx.orig) && > !((flags = le32_to_cpu(np->get_rx.orig->flaglen)) & NV_RX_AVAIL) && > - (rx_processed_cnt++ < limit)) { > + (++rx_processed_cnt < limit)) { > > dprintk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: nv_rx_process: flags 0x%x.\n", > dev->name, flags); > @@ -2412,7 +2412,7 @@ static int nv_rx_process_optimized(struc > > while((np->get_rx.ex != np->put_rx.ex) && > !((flags = le32_to_cpu(np->get_rx.ex->flaglen)) & NV_RX2_AVAIL) && > - (rx_processed_cnt++ < limit)) { > + (++rx_processed_cnt < limit)) { Would the attached patch be ok with people? It's basically the same thing, except that it aligns a bit more closely with forcedeth rework stuff I'm doing. I'll send upstream today unless people scream... Jeff