From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
petrm@nvidia.com, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
mlxsw@nvidia.com, saeedm@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/2] net: devlink: remove devlink big lock
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:36:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YrwrKDAkR2xCAAWd@nanopsycho> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YrworZb5yNdnMFDI@nanopsycho>
Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 12:25:49PM CEST, jiri@resnulli.us wrote:
>Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 09:43:26AM CEST, idosch@nvidia.com wrote:
>>On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 05:55:06PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 05:41:31PM CEST, idosch@nvidia.com wrote:
>>> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 03:54:59PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>
>>> >>
>>> >> This is an attempt to remove use of devlink_mutex. This is a global lock
>>> >> taken for every user command. That causes that long operations performed
>>> >> on one devlink instance (like flash update) are blocking other
>>> >> operations on different instances.
>>> >
>>> >This patchset is supposed to prevent one devlink instance from blocking
>>> >another? Devlink does not enable "parallel_ops", which means that the
>>> >generic netlink mutex is serializing all user space operations. AFAICT,
>>> >this series does not enable "parallel_ops", so I'm not sure what
>>> >difference the removal of the devlink mutex makes.
>>>
>>> You are correct, that is missing. For me, as a side effect this patchset
>>> resolved the deadlock for LC auxdev you pointed out. That was my
>>> motivation for this patchset :)
>>
>>Given that devlink does not enable "parallel_ops" and that the generic
>>netlink mutex is held throughout all callbacks, what prevents you from
>>simply dropping the devlink mutex now? IOW, why can't this series be
>>patch #1 and another patch that removes the devlink mutex?
>
>Yep, I think you are correct. We are currently working with Moshe on
Okay, I see the problem with what you suggested:
devlink_pernet_pre_exit()
There, devlink_mutex is taken to protect against simultaneous cmds
from being executed. That will be fixed with reload conversion to take
devlink->lock.
>conversion of commands that does not late devlink->lock (like health
>reporters and reload) to take devlink->lock. Once we have that, we can
>enable parallel_ops.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >The devlink mutex (in accordance with the comment above it) serializes
>>> >all user space operations and accesses to the devlink devices list. This
>>> >resulted in a AA deadlock in the previous submission because we had a
>>> >flow where a user space operation (which acquires this mutex) also tries
>>> >to register / unregister a nested devlink instance which also tries to
>>> >acquire the mutex.
>>> >
>>> >As long as devlink does not implement "parallel_ops", it seems that the
>>> >devlink mutex can be reduced to only serializing accesses to the devlink
>>> >devices list, thereby eliminating the deadlock.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> The first patch makes sure that the xarray that holds devlink pointers
>>> >> is possible to be safely iterated.
>>> >>
>>> >> The second patch moves the user command mutex to be per-devlink.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jiri Pirko (2):
>>> >> net: devlink: make sure that devlink_try_get() works with valid
>>> >> pointer during xarray iteration
>>> >> net: devlink: replace devlink_mutex by per-devlink lock
>>> >>
>>> >> net/core/devlink.c | 256 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>> >> 1 file changed, 161 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> 2.35.3
>>> >>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-29 10:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-27 13:54 [patch net-next RFC 0/2] net: devlink: remove devlink big lock Jiri Pirko
2022-06-27 13:55 ` [patch net-next RFC 1/2] net: devlink: make sure that devlink_try_get() works with valid pointer during xarray iteration Jiri Pirko
2022-06-27 13:55 ` [patch net-next RFC 2/2] net: devlink: replace devlink_mutex by per-devlink lock Jiri Pirko
2022-06-27 15:41 ` [patch net-next RFC 0/2] net: devlink: remove devlink big lock Ido Schimmel
2022-06-27 15:55 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-06-28 7:43 ` Ido Schimmel
2022-06-29 10:25 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-06-29 10:36 ` Jiri Pirko [this message]
2022-06-29 11:30 ` Ido Schimmel
2022-06-29 11:47 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-06-27 17:49 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-06-28 6:32 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-06-28 7:04 ` Jiri Pirko
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=YrwrKDAkR2xCAAWd@nanopsycho \
--to=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=mlxsw@nvidia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=petrm@nvidia.com \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
/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).