[Intel-wired-lan] [igb] netconsole triggers warning in netpoll_poll_dev
Oleksandr Natalenko
oleksandr at natalenko.name
Fri Apr 23 08:19:44 UTC 2021
Hello.
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:06:29PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:07 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:25:28 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 8:37 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 08:00:53 +0200 Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the effort, but reportedly [1] it made no difference,
> > > > > unfortunately.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212573#c8
> > > >
> > > > The only other option I see is that somehow the NAPI has no rings.
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> > > > index a45cd2b416c8..24568adc2fb1 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> > > > @@ -7980,7 +7980,7 @@ static int igb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> > > > struct igb_q_vector *q_vector = container_of(napi,
> > > > struct igb_q_vector,
> > > > napi);
> > > > - bool clean_complete = true;
> > > > + bool clean_complete = q_vector->tx.ring || q_vector->rx.ring;
> > > > int work_done = 0;
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_IGB_DCA
> > >
> > > It might make sense to just cast the work_done as a unsigned int, and
> > > then on the end of igb_poll use:
> > > return min_t(unsigned int, work_done, budget - 1);
> >
> > Sure, that's simplest. I wasn't sure something is supposed to prevent
> > this condition or if it's okay to cover it up.
>
> I'm pretty sure it is okay to cover it up. In this case the "budget -
> 1" is supposed to be the upper limit on what can be reported. I think
> it was assuming an unsigned value anyway.
>
> Another alternative would be to default clean_complete to !!budget.
> Then if budget is 0 clean_complete would always return false.
So, among all the variants, which one to try? Or there was a separate
patch sent to address this?
Thanks.
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
More information about the Intel-wired-lan
mailing list