[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <334b4af2-1ac0-d28b-f1a5-b9b604a9ba80@mellanox.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 10:11:37 +0200
From: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] net/sched: act_ct: Create nf flow table
per zone
iirc I did the spin lock bh because we can be called from queue work rcu handler , so I wanted to disable soft irq.
I got a possible deadlock splat for that.
On 3/7/2020 10:53 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On 3/7/20 12:12 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> On 3/3/20 7:57 AM, Paul Blakey wrote:
>>> Use the NF flow tables infrastructure for CT offload.
>>>
>>> Create a nf flow table per zone.
>>>
>>> Next patches will add FT entries to this table, and do
>>> the software offload.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>>> ---
>>> v4->v5:
>>> Added reviewed by Jiri, thanks!
>>> v3->v4:
>>> Alloc GFP_ATOMIC
>>> v2->v3:
>>> Ditch re-locking to alloc, and use atomic allocation
>>> v1->v2:
>>> Use spin_lock_bh instead of spin_lock, and unlock for alloc (as it can sleep)
>>> Free ft on last tc act instance instead of last instance + last offloaded tuple,
>>> this removes cleanup cb and netfilter patches, and is simpler
>>> Removed accidental mlx5/core/en_tc.c change
>>> Removed reviewed by Jiri - patch changed
>>>
>>> + err = nf_flow_table_init(&ct_ft->nf_ft);
>> This call is going to allocate a rhashtable (GFP_KERNEL allocations that might sleep)
>>
>> Since you still hold zones_lock spinlock, a splat should occur.
>>
>> "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context in ..."
>>
>> DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y is your friend.
>>
>> And it is always a good thing to make sure a patch does not trigger a lockdep splat
>>
>> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y
> Also abusing a spinlock and GFP_ATOMIC allocations in control path is highly discouraged.
>
> I can not test the following fix, any objections before I submit this officially ?
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/act_ct.c b/net/sched/act_ct.c
> index 23eba61f0f819212a3522c3c63b938d0b8d997e2..3d9e678d7d5336f1746035745b091bea0dcb5fdd 100644
> --- a/net/sched/act_ct.c
> +++ b/net/sched/act_ct.c
> @@ -35,15 +35,15 @@
>
> static struct workqueue_struct *act_ct_wq;
> static struct rhashtable zones_ht;
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zones_lock);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(zones_mutex);
>
> struct tcf_ct_flow_table {
> struct rhash_head node; /* In zones tables */
>
> struct rcu_work rwork;
> struct nf_flowtable nf_ft;
> + refcount_t ref;
> u16 zone;
> - u32 ref;
>
> bool dying;
> };
> @@ -64,14 +64,15 @@ static int tcf_ct_flow_table_get(struct tcf_ct_params *params)
> struct tcf_ct_flow_table *ct_ft;
> int err = -ENOMEM;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&zones_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&zones_mutex);
> ct_ft = rhashtable_lookup_fast(&zones_ht, ¶ms->zone, zones_params);
> - if (ct_ft)
> - goto take_ref;
> + if (ct_ft && refcount_inc_not_zero(&ct_ft->ref))
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> - ct_ft = kzalloc(sizeof(*ct_ft), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + ct_ft = kzalloc(sizeof(*ct_ft), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!ct_ft)
> goto err_alloc;
> + refcount_set(&ct_ft->ref, 1);
>
> ct_ft->zone = params->zone;
> err = rhashtable_insert_fast(&zones_ht, &ct_ft->node, zones_params);
> @@ -84,10 +85,9 @@ static int tcf_ct_flow_table_get(struct tcf_ct_params *params)
> goto err_init;
>
> __module_get(THIS_MODULE);
> -take_ref:
> +out_unlock:
> params->ct_ft = ct_ft;
> - ct_ft->ref++;
> - spin_unlock_bh(&zones_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&zones_mutex);
>
> return 0;
>
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static int tcf_ct_flow_table_get(struct tcf_ct_params *params)
> err_insert:
> kfree(ct_ft);
> err_alloc:
> - spin_unlock_bh(&zones_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&zones_mutex);
> return err;
> }
>
> @@ -116,13 +116,11 @@ static void tcf_ct_flow_table_put(struct tcf_ct_params *params)
> {
> struct tcf_ct_flow_table *ct_ft = params->ct_ft;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&zones_lock);
> - if (--params->ct_ft->ref == 0) {
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(¶ms->ct_ft->ref)) {
> rhashtable_remove_fast(&zones_ht, &ct_ft->node, zones_params);
> INIT_RCU_WORK(&ct_ft->rwork, tcf_ct_flow_table_cleanup_work);
> queue_rcu_work(act_ct_wq, &ct_ft->rwork);
> }
> - spin_unlock_bh(&zones_lock);
> }
>
> static void tcf_ct_flow_table_add(struct tcf_ct_flow_table *ct_ft,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists