[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130307144355.GA2464@neilslaptop.think-freely.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:43:55 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, amwang@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netconsole: release the spinlock before
__netpoll_cleanup()
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:03:25AM +0100, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 07:08:24PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:46:43PM +0100, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> >>Commit 3335f0ca130c201f8680e97f63612053fbc16e22 removed spinlock unlocking
> >>before __netpoll_cleanup() in netconsole_netdev_event(), however we still
> >>might sleep in __netpoll_cleanup() - via synchronize_srcu(). Revert it and
> >>add a comment.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
> >>---
> >> drivers/net/netconsole.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> >>index 37add21..dd62b4c 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> >>@@ -680,7 +680,17 @@ static int netconsole_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
> >> * rtnl_lock already held
> >> */
> >> if (nt->np.dev) {
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * we still might sleep in
> >>+ * __netpoll_cleanup(), so release
> >>+ * the lock
> >>+ */
> >>+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(
> >>+ &target_list_lock,
> >>+ flags);
> >> __netpoll_cleanup(&nt->np);
> >>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&target_list_lock,
> >>+ flags);
> >> dev_put(nt->np.dev);
> >> nt->np.dev = NULL;
> >> }
> >>--
> >>1.7.1
> >>
> >Thanks for noticing this Vaeceslav, but you can't just drop and re-acquire the
> >lock like this, as it protect the list_for_each_entry loop that you're in. You
> >can drop the lock in the above if clause, but then, after the nt->np.dev = NULL,
> >go back an re-aquire the lock, and start the for loop. I thought we had already
> >done this for some other purpose in this code using a label and a goto, but I
> >suppose I was mistaken
>
> You're right, I somehow missed that restart goto, which was removed
> earlier. Does that feel right (I've also added back the
> netconsole_target_put()):
>
> Subject: [PATCH] netconsole: release the spinlock before __netpoll_cleanup()
>
> __netpoll_cleanup() might sleep in synchronize_srcu(), which was added to
> avoid race in another situation, so we can't call it with the spinlock
> target_list_lock held.
>
> Add spin_unlock/lock before/after it and restart the loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/netconsole.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> index 37add21..267c26b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> @@ -666,6 +666,7 @@ static int netconsole_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
> goto done;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&target_list_lock, flags);
> +restart:
> list_for_each_entry(nt, &target_list, list) {
> netconsole_target_get(nt);
> if (nt->np.dev == dev) {
> @@ -680,9 +681,21 @@ static int netconsole_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
> * rtnl_lock already held
> */
> if (nt->np.dev) {
> + /*
> + * we still might sleep in
> + * __netpoll_cleanup(), so release
> + * the lock and restart
> + */
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(
> + &target_list_lock,
> + flags);
> __netpoll_cleanup(&nt->np);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&target_list_lock,
> + flags);
> dev_put(nt->np.dev);
> nt->np.dev = NULL;
> + netconsole_target_put(nt);
> + goto restart;
> }
> nt->enabled = 0;
> stopped = true;
> --
> 1.7.1
>
Yes, this looks better, thank you.
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists