[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+6oxBvxlApui8Ei@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:05:56 -0800
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>
Cc: yangbo.lu@....com, mlichvar@...hat.com,
gerhard@...leder-embedded.com, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
ecree.xilinx@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Yalin Li <yalli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ptp: vclock: use mutex to fix "sleep on atomic" bug
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 03:30:51PM +0100, Íñigo Huguet wrote:
> vclocks were using spinlocks to protect access to its timecounter and
> cyclecounter. Access to timecounter/cyclecounter is backed by the same
> driver callbacks that are used for non-virtual PHCs, but the usage of
> the spinlock imposes a new limitation that didn't exist previously: now
> they're called in atomic context so they mustn't sleep.
>
> Some drivers like sfc or ice may sleep on these callbacks, causing
> errors like "BUG: scheduling while atomic: ptp5/25223/0x00000002"
>
> Fix it replacing the vclock's spinlock by a mutex. It fix the mentioned
> bug and it doesn't introduce longer delays.
Thanks for taking this up...
> I've tested synchronizing various different combinations of clocks:
> - vclock->sysclock
> - sysclock->vclock
> - vclock->vclock
> - hardware PHC in different NIC -> vclock
> - created 4 vclocks and launch 4 parallel phc2sys processes
Could you please try it with lockdep enabled?
> @@ -43,16 +43,16 @@ static void ptp_vclock_hash_del(struct ptp_vclock *vclock)
> static int ptp_vclock_adjfine(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, long scaled_ppm)
> {
> struct ptp_vclock *vclock = info_to_vclock(ptp);
> - unsigned long flags;
> s64 adj;
>
> adj = (s64)scaled_ppm << PTP_VCLOCK_FADJ_SHIFT;
> adj = div_s64(adj, PTP_VCLOCK_FADJ_DENOMINATOR);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&vclock->lock, flags);
> + if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&vclock->lock) < 0)
> + return -EINTR;
Nit: please drop the '< 0' from the test.
> @@ -281,9 +280,10 @@ ktime_t ptp_convert_timestamp(const ktime_t *hwtstamp, int vclock_index)
> if (vclock->clock->index != vclock_index)
> continue;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&vclock->lock, flags);
> + if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&vclock->lock) < 0)
> + break;
This is the only one that I'm not sure about. The others are all
called from user context. Clean lockdep run would help.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists