Messages in this thread | | | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:55:11 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] bonding: use a read-write lock in bonding_show_bonds() |
| |
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 10:25 AM Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com> wrote: > > Problem description: > > Call stack: > ...... > PID: 210933 TASK: ffff92424e5ec080 CPU: 13 COMMAND: "kworker/u96:2" > [ffffa7a8e96bbac0] __schedule at ffffffffb0719898 > [ffffa7a8e96bbb48] schedule at ffffffffb0719e9e > [ffffa7a8e96bbb68] rwsem_down_write_slowpath at ffffffffafb3167a > [ffffa7a8e96bbc00] down_write at ffffffffb071bfc1 > [ffffa7a8e96bbc18] kernfs_remove_by_name_ns at ffffffffafe3593e > [ffffa7a8e96bbc48] sysfs_unmerge_group at ffffffffafe38922 > [ffffa7a8e96bbc68] dpm_sysfs_remove at ffffffffb021c96a > [ffffa7a8e96bbc80] device_del at ffffffffb0209af8 > [ffffa7a8e96bbcd0] netdev_unregister_kobject at ffffffffb04a6b0e > [ffffa7a8e96bbcf8] unregister_netdevice_many at ffffffffb046d3d9 > [ffffa7a8e96bbd60] default_device_exit_batch at ffffffffb046d8d1 > [ffffa7a8e96bbdd0] ops_exit_list at ffffffffb045e21d > [ffffa7a8e96bbe00] cleanup_net at ffffffffb045ea46 > [ffffa7a8e96bbe60] process_one_work at ffffffffafad94bb > [ffffa7a8e96bbeb0] worker_thread at ffffffffafad96ad > [ffffa7a8e96bbf10] kthread at ffffffffafae132a > [ffffa7a8e96bbf50] ret_from_fork at ffffffffafa04b92 > > 290858 PID: 278176 TASK: ffff925deb39a040 CPU: 32 COMMAND: "node-exporter" > [ffffa7a8d14dbb80] __schedule at ffffffffb0719898 > [ffffa7a8d14dbc08] schedule at ffffffffb0719e9e > [ffffa7a8d14dbc28] schedule_preempt_disabled at ffffffffb071a24e > [ffffa7a8d14dbc38] __mutex_lock at ffffffffb071af28 > [ffffa7a8d14dbcb8] __mutex_lock_slowpath at ffffffffb071b1a3 > [ffffa7a8d14dbcc8] mutex_lock at ffffffffb071b1e2 > [ffffa7a8d14dbce0] rtnl_lock at ffffffffb047f4b5 > [ffffa7a8d14dbcf0] bonding_show_bonds at ffffffffc079b1a1 [bonding] > [ffffa7a8d14dbd20] class_attr_show at ffffffffb02117ce > [ffffa7a8d14dbd30] sysfs_kf_seq_show at ffffffffafe37ba1 > [ffffa7a8d14dbd50] kernfs_seq_show at ffffffffafe35c07 > [ffffa7a8d14dbd60] seq_read_iter at ffffffffafd9fce0 > [ffffa7a8d14dbdc0] kernfs_fop_read_iter at ffffffffafe36a10 > [ffffa7a8d14dbe00] new_sync_read at ffffffffafd6de23 > [ffffa7a8d14dbe90] vfs_read at ffffffffafd6e64e > [ffffa7a8d14dbed0] ksys_read at ffffffffafd70977 > [ffffa7a8d14dbf10] __x64_sys_read at ffffffffafd70a0a > [ffffa7a8d14dbf20] do_syscall_64 at ffffffffb070bf1c > [ffffa7a8d14dbf50] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe at ffffffffb080007c > ...... > > Thread 210933 holds the rtnl_mutex and tries to acquire the kernfs_rwsem, > but there are many readers which hold the kernfs_rwsem, so it has to sleep > for a long time to wait the readers release the lock. Thread 278176 and any > other threads which call bonding_show_bonds() also need to wait because > they try to acquire the rtnl_mutex. > > bonding_show_bonds() uses rtnl_mutex to protect the bond_list traversal. > However, the addition and deletion of bond_list are only performed in > bond_init()/bond_uninit(), so we can introduce a separate read-write lock > to synchronize bond list mutation. In addition, bonding_show_bonds() could > race with dev_change_name(), so we need devnet_rename_sem to protect the > access to dev->name. > > What are the benefits of this change? > > 1) All threads which call bonding_show_bonds() only wait when the > registration or unregistration of bond device happens or the name > of net device changes. > > 2) There are many other users of rtnl_mutex, so bonding_show_bonds() > won't compete with them. > > In a word, this change reduces the lock contention of rtnl_mutex. > > Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com> > Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > ---
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
| |