From: Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@bull.net>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dlezcano@fr.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:19:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48EA2C71.6070509@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1KmLCH-0003E2-Ch@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@bull.net> wrote:
>> 1. Unregister a device, the following routines are called:
>>
>> -> unregister_netdev
>> -> rtnl_lock
>> -> unregister_netdevice
>> -> rtnl_unlock
>> -> netdev_run_todo
>> -> netdev_wait_allrefs
>
> OK, this explains lots of dead-locks that people have been seeing.
>
> But I think we can go a step further:
>
> net: Fix netdev_run_todo dead-lock
>
> Benjamin Thery tracked down a bug that explains many instances
> of the error
>
> unregister_netdevice: waiting for %s to become free. Usage count = %d
>
> It turns out that netdev_run_todo can dead-lock with itself if
> a second instance of it is run in a thread that will then free
> a reference to the device waited on by the first instance.
>
> The problem is really quite silly. We were trying to create
> parallelism where none was required. As netdev_run_todo always
> follows a RTNL section, and that todo tasks can only be added
> with the RTNL held, by definition you should only need to wait
> for the very ones that you've added and be done with it.
>
> There is no need for a second mutex or spinlock.
>
> This is exactly what the following patch does.
Herbert, thank you for having looked at the issue too.
When I understood how the dead lock happened, I considered playing
with the locks in net_set_todo()/netdev_run_todo(), but as some comments
in the code in this area sounds a bit too cryptic for my brain, I didn't
dare to change them myself. :)
I guess you know a lot better than me the history behind this piece of
code and why it was done this way.
I tested your patch on my testbed during all the afternoon.
It fixes the dead lock I can easily reproduce here with net namespaces
and I didn't produce any regressions on my setup.
Benjamin
>
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index e8eb2b4..021f531 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -3808,14 +3808,11 @@ static int dev_new_index(struct net *net)
> }
>
> /* Delayed registration/unregisteration */
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(net_todo_list_lock);
> static LIST_HEAD(net_todo_list);
>
> static void net_set_todo(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> - spin_lock(&net_todo_list_lock);
> list_add_tail(&dev->todo_list, &net_todo_list);
> - spin_unlock(&net_todo_list_lock);
> }
>
> static void rollback_registered(struct net_device *dev)
> @@ -4142,33 +4139,24 @@ static void netdev_wait_allrefs(struct net_device *dev)
> * free_netdev(y1);
> * free_netdev(y2);
> *
> - * We are invoked by rtnl_unlock() after it drops the semaphore.
> + * We are invoked by rtnl_unlock().
> * This allows us to deal with problems:
> * 1) We can delete sysfs objects which invoke hotplug
> * without deadlocking with linkwatch via keventd.
> * 2) Since we run with the RTNL semaphore not held, we can sleep
> * safely in order to wait for the netdev refcnt to drop to zero.
> + *
> + * We must not return until all unregister events added during
> + * the interval the lock was held have been completed.
> */
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(net_todo_run_mutex);
> void netdev_run_todo(void)
> {
> struct list_head list;
>
> - /* Need to guard against multiple cpu's getting out of order. */
> - mutex_lock(&net_todo_run_mutex);
> -
> - /* Not safe to do outside the semaphore. We must not return
> - * until all unregister events invoked by the local processor
> - * have been completed (either by this todo run, or one on
> - * another cpu).
> - */
> - if (list_empty(&net_todo_list))
> - goto out;
> -
> /* Snapshot list, allow later requests */
> - spin_lock(&net_todo_list_lock);
> list_replace_init(&net_todo_list, &list);
> - spin_unlock(&net_todo_list_lock);
> +
> + __rtnl_unlock();
>
> while (!list_empty(&list)) {
> struct net_device *dev
> @@ -4200,9 +4188,6 @@ void netdev_run_todo(void)
> /* Free network device */
> kobject_put(&dev->dev.kobj);
> }
> -
> -out:
> - mutex_unlock(&net_todo_run_mutex);
> }
>
> static struct net_device_stats *internal_stats(struct net_device *dev)
> diff --git a/net/core/rtnetlink.c b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> index 71edb8b..d6381c2 100644
> --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ void __rtnl_unlock(void)
>
> void rtnl_unlock(void)
> {
> - mutex_unlock(&rtnl_mutex);
> + /* This fellow will unlock it for us. */
> netdev_run_todo();
> }
>
> Cheers,
--
B e n j a m i n T h e r y - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D
http://www.bull.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-06 15:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080929175412.866679567@theryb.frec.bull.fr>
2008-09-29 17:54 ` [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration Benjamin Thery
2008-09-30 6:32 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-09-30 11:52 ` Benjamin Thery
2008-09-30 13:58 ` David Miller
2008-09-30 14:07 ` Benjamin Thery
2008-09-30 14:42 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-09-30 14:57 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-09-30 15:18 ` Benjamin Thery
2008-10-01 9:59 ` David Miller
2008-10-01 10:10 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-10-01 10:12 ` David Miller
2008-10-01 14:14 ` [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration - V2 Benjamin Thery
2008-10-01 19:48 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-01 21:06 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-10-01 21:52 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-01 23:31 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-02 15:23 ` Benjamin Thery
2008-10-02 18:38 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-02 19:55 ` Benjamin Thery
2008-10-02 20:34 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-04 7:42 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-04 7:52 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-03 0:41 ` [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration Eric W. Biederman
2008-10-05 4:26 ` Herbert Xu
2008-10-05 6:55 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-05 6:56 ` Herbert Xu
2008-10-05 7:12 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-10-05 7:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-10-05 7:38 ` Herbert Xu
2008-10-05 7:39 ` Herbert Xu
2008-10-06 15:19 ` Benjamin Thery [this message]
2008-10-07 22:46 ` David Miller
2008-10-07 22:50 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48EA2C71.6070509@bull.net \
--to=benjamin.thery@bull.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dlezcano@fr.ibm.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.