From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@bull.net>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration - V2
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:38:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081002183819.GA2664@ami.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48E4E772.2020208@bull.net>
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 05:23:30PM +0200, Benjamin Thery wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:06:22PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:14:35PM +0200, Benjamin Thery wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> --- net-next-2.6.orig/net/core/dst.c
>>>>> +++ net-next-2.6/net/core/dst.c
>>>>> @@ -328,6 +328,10 @@ static int dst_dev_event(struct notifier
>>>>> dst_ifdown(dst, dev, event != NETDEV_DOWN);
>>>>> }
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&dst_gc_mutex);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (event == NETDEV_UNREGISTER &&
>>>>> + cancel_delayed_work(&dst_gc_work))
>>>>> + dst_gc_task(&dst_gc_work.work);
>>>> Hmm... It seems this shouldn't work yet: cancel_delayed_work() can only
>>>> kill this while on timer, but not when queued and maybe blocked already.
>
> You're right.
>
>>
>> Hmm#2... Then maybe something like this?:
>>
>> if (event == NETDEV_UNREGISTER &&
>> (cancel_delayed_work(&dst_gc_work) ||
>> delayed_work_pending(&dst_gc_work)))
>> dst_gc_task(&dst_gc_work.work);
>
> Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand what this change do?
>
> OK, I see this ensure we will run dst_gc_task() even if
> cancel_delayed_work() failed and the work is still pending (ie. the
> timer has expired and dst_gc_work is already in the queue).
I think, this covers exactly the case of blocking you described, plus
more... (the work is queued but not blocked).
>
> But what if the work was not pending at all at beginning?
> We still need to run dst_gc_task().
Maybe I miss something, but if this is really needed here then it
looks like we are fixing more than "the blocking" bug BTW.
>
> Is something like this better?
> (code expanded to be more readable)
>
> if (event == NETDEV_UNREGISTER) {
> if (!delayed_work_pending(&dst_gc_work))
> /* work is not scheduled (no timer, not in queue) */
/* may be running too */
> dst_gc_task(&dst_gc_work.work);
> else if (cancel_delayed_work(&dst_gc_work) ||
> delayed_work_pending(&dst_gc_work)))
> /* work was scheduled (and may be blocked) */
/* actually could be both running and pending here:
* if it's after rearming
*/
> dst_gc_task(&dst_gc_work.work);
> else
> /* dst_gc_task() is running, do nothing */
So again !delayed_work_pending() - there could be the change of state
while checking - but then looks a bit inconsistent. I think this should
be OK too.
As a matter of fact I've thought about something even simpler, which
probably should help for all above concerns too:
if (event == NETDEV_UNREGISTER)
dst_gc_task(&dst_gc_work.work);
dst_gc_task() locking allows for this, and running this two times in
a row could be even faster than trying to cancel the unnecessary run.
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-02 18:37 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 [this message]
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
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=20081002183819.GA2664@ami.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=benjamin.thery@bull.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dlezcano@fr.ibm.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).