From: sagi@grimberg.me (Sagi Grimberg)
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/3] iwarp device removal deadlock fix
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:47:12 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <578F3A90.1000208@grimberg.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1468879135.git.swise@opengridcomputing.com>
> This RFC series attempts to address the deadlock issue discovered
> while testing nvmf/rdma handling rdma device removal events from
> the rdma_cm.
Thanks for doing this Steve!
> For a discussion of the deadlock that can happen, see
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2016-July/005440.html.
>
> For my description of the deadlock itself, see this post in the above thread:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2016-July/005465.html
>
> In a nutshell, iw_cxgb4 and the iw_cm block during qp/cm_id destruction
> until all references are removed. This combined with the iwarp CM passing
> disconnect events up to the rdma_cm during disconnect and/or qp/cm_id destruction
> leads to a deadlock.
>
> My proposed solution is to remove the need for iw_cxgb4 and iw_cm to
> block during object destruction for the recnts to reach 0, but rather to
> let the freeing of the object memory be deferred when the last deref is
> done. This allows all the qps/cm_ids to be destroyed without blocking, and
> all the object memory freeing ends up happinging when the application's
> device_remove event handler function returns to the rdma_cm.
This sounds like a very good approach moving forward.
> Sean, I was hoping you could have a look at the iwcm.c patch particularly,
> to tell my why its broken. :) I spent some time trying to figure out
> why we really need the CALLBACK_DESTROY flag, but I concluded it really
> isn't needed. The one side effect I see with my change, is that the
> application could possibly get a cm_id event after it has destroyed the
> cm_id. There probably is a way to discard events that have a reference
> on the cm_id but get processed after the app has destoyed the cm_id by
> having a new flag indicating "destroyed by app".
That sounds easy enough. Does this mean that iwcm relies on the driver
to do this or is it inter-operable with the existing logic? If not this
will need to take care of all the iWARP drivers.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org>
To: Steve Wise
<swise-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>,
linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Cc: sean.hefty-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
mlin-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
hch-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org,
linux-nvme-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] iwarp device removal deadlock fix
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:47:12 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <578F3A90.1000208@grimberg.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1468879135.git.swise-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>
> This RFC series attempts to address the deadlock issue discovered
> while testing nvmf/rdma handling rdma device removal events from
> the rdma_cm.
Thanks for doing this Steve!
> For a discussion of the deadlock that can happen, see
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2016-July/005440.html.
>
> For my description of the deadlock itself, see this post in the above thread:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2016-July/005465.html
>
> In a nutshell, iw_cxgb4 and the iw_cm block during qp/cm_id destruction
> until all references are removed. This combined with the iwarp CM passing
> disconnect events up to the rdma_cm during disconnect and/or qp/cm_id destruction
> leads to a deadlock.
>
> My proposed solution is to remove the need for iw_cxgb4 and iw_cm to
> block during object destruction for the recnts to reach 0, but rather to
> let the freeing of the object memory be deferred when the last deref is
> done. This allows all the qps/cm_ids to be destroyed without blocking, and
> all the object memory freeing ends up happinging when the application's
> device_remove event handler function returns to the rdma_cm.
This sounds like a very good approach moving forward.
> Sean, I was hoping you could have a look at the iwcm.c patch particularly,
> to tell my why its broken. :) I spent some time trying to figure out
> why we really need the CALLBACK_DESTROY flag, but I concluded it really
> isn't needed. The one side effect I see with my change, is that the
> application could possibly get a cm_id event after it has destroyed the
> cm_id. There probably is a way to discard events that have a reference
> on the cm_id but get processed after the app has destoyed the cm_id by
> having a new flag indicating "destroyed by app".
That sounds easy enough. Does this mean that iwcm relies on the driver
to do this or is it inter-operable with the existing logic? If not this
will need to take care of all the iWARP drivers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-20 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-18 21:58 [PATCH RFC 0/3] iwarp device removal deadlock fix Steve Wise
2016-07-18 21:58 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-18 20:44 ` [PATCH 1/3] iw_cm: free cm_id resources on the last deref Steve Wise
2016-07-18 20:44 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-20 8:51 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-07-20 8:51 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-07-20 13:51 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-20 13:51 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-21 14:17 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-21 14:17 ` Steve Wise
[not found] ` <045f01d1e35a$93618a60$ba249f20$@opengridcomputing.com>
2016-07-21 15:45 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-21 15:45 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-18 20:44 ` [PATCH 2/3] iw_cxgb4: don't block in destroy_qp awaiting " Steve Wise
2016-07-18 20:44 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-20 8:52 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-07-20 8:52 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-07-18 20:44 ` [PATCH 3/3] nvme-rdma: Fix device removal handling Sagi Grimberg
2016-07-18 20:44 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-07-21 8:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-07-21 8:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-07-22 18:37 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-22 18:37 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-20 8:47 ` Sagi Grimberg [this message]
2016-07-20 8:47 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] iwarp device removal deadlock fix Sagi Grimberg
2016-07-20 13:49 ` Steve Wise
2016-07-20 13:49 ` Steve Wise
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=578F3A90.1000208@grimberg.me \
--to=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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.