lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Lockup with 2.6.9-ac15 related to netconsole
Francois Romieu wrote:
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> :
> [...]
>
>>at least the queued messages ordered. But you need to grab
>>dev->queue_lock, otherwise you risk corrupting qdisc internal data.
>>You should probably also deal with the noqueue-qdisc, which doesn't
>>have an enqueue function. So it should look something like this:
>
>
> If I am not mistaken, a failure on spin_trylock + the test on
> xmit_lock_owner imply that it is safe to directly handle the
> queue. It means that qdisc_run() has been interrupted on the
> current cpu and the other paths seem fine as well. Counter-example
> is welcome (no joke).

enqueue is only protected by dev->queue_lock, and dev->queue_lock
is dropped as soon as dev->xmit_lock is grabbed, so any other CPU
might call enqueue at the same time.

Example:

CPU1 CPU2

dev_queue_xmit dev_queue_xmit
lock(dev->queue_lock) lock(dev->queue_lock)
q->enqueue
qdisc_run
qdisc_restart
trylock(dev->xmit_lock), ok
unlock(dev->queue_lock)
...
printk("something")
...
netpoll_send_skb
trylock(dev->xmit_lock), fails
q->enqueue q->enqueue

> Of course the patch is completely ugly and violates any layering
> principle one could think of. It was not submitted for inclusion :o)

Sure, but I think we should have a short-term workaround until
a better solution has been invented. Maybe dropping the packets
would be best for now, it only affects printks issued in paths
starting at qdisc_restart (-> hard_start_xmit -> ...). Queueing
the packets might also cause reordering since not all packets
are queued.

>>while (!spin_trylock(&np->dev->xmit_lock)) {
>> if (np->dev->xmit_lock_owner == smp_processor_id()) {
>> struct Qdisc *q;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> q = rcu_dereference(dev->qdisc);
>> if (q->enqueue) {
>> spin_lock(&dev->queue_lock);
>
>
> I'd expect it to deadlock if dev_queue_xmit -> qdisc_run is interrupted
> on the current cpu and a printk is issued as dev->queue_lock will have
> been taken elsewhere.

Hmm this is complicated, let me think some more about it.

Regards
Patrick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans