On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 08:08 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 07:55 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> >> > So removing the spinlock is doable, but needs to add a new parameter >> > to mlx4_en_fold_software_stats() and call netdev_stats_to_stats64() >> > before mlx4_en_fold_software_stats(dev) >> >> Untested patch would be : >> >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_ethtool.c | 2 - >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c | 10 +---- >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_port.c | 24 +++++++++----- >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/mlx4_en.h | 3 + >> 4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > The patch is wrong, since priv->port_up could change to false while we > are running and using the about to be deleted tx/rx rings. >
Right, hence the regression Jesper saw ;). > > So the only safe thing to do is to remove the _bh suffix. > > Not worth trying to avoid taking a spinlock in this code. > Ack.
