[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130411180517.GJ17641@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:05:17 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>,
Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH repost for-3.9] pci: avoid work_on_cpu for nested SRIOV
probes
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:30:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> The issue is that a driver, in it's probe function, calls
> pci_sriov_enable so a PF device probe causes VF probe (AKA nested
> probe). Each probe in pci_device_probe is (normally) run through
> work_on_cpu (this is to get the right numa node for memory allocated by
> the driver). In turn work_on_cpu does this internally:
>
> schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
> flush_work(&wfc.work);
>
> So if you are running probe on CPU1, and cause another
> probe on the same CPU, this will try to flush
> workqueue from inside same workqueue which of course
> deadlocks.
>
> Nested probing might be tricky to get right generally.
Hmm... how about adding a work_on_cpu_nested() which takes @subclass
argument? Wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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