From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272091BC57 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:11:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717737069; cv=none; b=qLUkdK6hlYtonUxWvwo3qe16oviBdXthJ8a8Py2OJagbj1MVBcTNEe1Jdjup/gQLzejiArZ1X92E+yrKxUjaZhU3SSwq5WNOoW2oY6Ud/6ssS7X5r8qfu1BbdUzhaYCRfxIV6EndWOrC/f0o6EDNCW9MN/mL/g+LdqZ63x3Wal8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717737069; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rUJ4MMbZfULIIuSERv6dhLxq8IoMTckI/MPHugpGGYc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=f+pg3AL+dw94M5FFqYFvIdlugNdpOGHkq9y3fLRMtnaMqLrYG0qon6AUA/gxi6GB/tC7YvZW+h+9nyvJRE6GJ4VqqXiDZcEJ9z4ysCn50bsNYorZX1wzE4BFa/RHHXs+NLiXni3PUhEmSpOUXyr//5fUXcoiafbn0mRol9NfbWo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=OipDHOip; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="OipDHOip" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1717737067; x=1749273067; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=rUJ4MMbZfULIIuSERv6dhLxq8IoMTckI/MPHugpGGYc=; b=OipDHOipgLYXkj11pAGelE62qL7XdwklAZKbPhAscD6UZlDX4WWCijnv 9A9s0qYZAJYY9lJXFkOTh855eczoftv5DrL0q0CoIwwWBKlU4zADaEr8b iHjVf3PkULjZqH87as3DC3HNx3NtMBuLaGYBSI/fvK7is/5f0hkKtac9g FmMn0leL4WUbrQGUgUZRl6yYcaYBnjAiHu/nMGmVT0sgXRLQFFZqyZtqj GtPR5kmarKv44vacV4xGEyYM5kGRed/TmsbBgkkt9jJ7Pw512pAnqdr7n dqDUsFrq0gnD72GcAc4MqDoW/gCAta9hczr7V1eRrEzjnKivtMr/+cicv g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: t9Af3It9SW6CfuATQw4MrA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: HEzjtJOwTxWxnASbQFYddg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11095"; a="31934246" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,220,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="31934246" Received: from orviesa009.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.149]) by orvoesa102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jun 2024 22:11:07 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: A1f9U6neRSisptxZQZYJxw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: jpdJKNzCQnKA02mfPISskg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,220,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="38269332" Received: from unknown (HELO mev-dev) ([10.237.112.144]) by orviesa009-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jun 2024 22:11:05 -0700 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:10:13 +0200 From: Michal Swiatkowski To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Jacob Keller , netdev , David Miller , Sujai Buvaneswaran , Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] ice: move devlink locking outside the port creation Message-ID: References: <20240605-next-2024-06-03-intel-next-batch-v2-0-39c23963fa78@intel.com> <20240605-next-2024-06-03-intel-next-batch-v2-3-39c23963fa78@intel.com> <20240606175634.2e42fca8@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240606175634.2e42fca8@kernel.org> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 05:56:34PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 13:40:43 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote: > > From: Michal Swiatkowski > > > > In case of subfunction lock will be taken for whole port creation. Do > > the same in VF case. > > No interactions with other locks worth mentioning? > You right, I could have mentioned also removing path. The patch is only about devlink lock during port representor creation / removing. > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/devlink/devlink.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/devlink/devlink.c > > index 704e9ad5144e..f774781ab514 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/devlink/devlink.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/devlink/devlink.c > > @@ -794,10 +794,8 @@ int ice_devlink_rate_init_tx_topology(struct devlink *devlink, struct ice_vsi *v > > > > tc_node = pi->root->children[0]; > > mutex_lock(&pi->sched_lock); > > - devl_lock(devlink); > > for (i = 0; i < tc_node->num_children; i++) > > ice_traverse_tx_tree(devlink, tc_node->children[i], tc_node, pf); > > - devl_unlock(devlink); > > mutex_unlock(&pi->sched_lock); > > Like this didn't use to cause a deadlock? > > Seems ice_devlink_rate_node_del() takes this lock and it's already > holding the devlink instance lock. ice_devlink_rate_init_tx_topology() wasn't (till now) called with devlink lock, because it is called from port representor creation flow, not from the devlink. Thanks, Michal