[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] lib: cpu_rmap: avoid flushing all workqueues
On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 15:12 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:52:25 -0800
> David Decotigny <> wrote:
> > In some cases, free_irq_cpu_rmap() is called while holding a lock
> > (eg. rtnl). This can lead to deadlocks, because it invokes
> > flush_scheduled_work() which ends up waiting for whole system
> > workqueue to flush, but some pending works might try to acquire the
> > lock we are already holding.
> >
> > This commit uses reference-counting to replace
> > irq_run_affinity_notifiers(). It also removes
> > irq_run_affinity_notifiers() altogether.
> I can't say that I've ever noticed cpu_rmap.c before :( Is is too late
> to review it?
> - The naming is chaotic. At least these:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(alloc_cpu_rmap);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(free_cpu_rmap);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_rmap_add);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_rmap_update);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(free_irq_cpu_rmap);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_cpu_rmap_add);
> should be consistently named cpu_rmap_foo()

There is a common practice of defining alloc_foo() and free_foo()
alongside foo_do_this() and foo_do_that(). I deliberately chose to
follow that. If this is deprecated then it should be documented

There is also a separation between functions that are specific to IRQ
affinity (last 2) and those that are not (first 4).

> - What's the locking model? It appears to be caller-provided, but
> it is undocumented.

I think caller-provided can be assumed as the default for library code.
And IRQ setup and teardown need to be properly serialised in the driver

> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/ appears to be using
> msix_ctl.pool_lock for exclusion, but I didn't check for coverage.
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/efx.c seems to not need locking because
> all its cpu_rmap operations are at module_init() time.
> The cpu_rmap code would be less of a hand grenade if each of its
> interface functions documented the caller's locking requirements.

This particular 'hand grenade' *was* documented. So I don't think
documentation is the problem.

> As for this patch: there's no cc:stable here but it does appear that
> the problem is sufficiently serious to justify a backport, agree?

Not sure. So far as I can see, nothing called free_irq_cpu_rmap() while
holding the RTNL lock before v3.8-rc1. If there can be work items on a
global workqueue that lock a PCI device (perhaps EEH?) then stable
versions may also be affected.


Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-03 01:21    [W:0.079 / U:8.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site