On Thu 2016-12-08 23:12:10, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > Hi, > > On 08.12.2016 22:54, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 2016-12-08 21:32:12, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 08.12.2016 00:15, Francois Romieu wrote: > >> > Lino Sanfilippo <linosanfili...@gmx.de> : > >> >> The driver uses a private lock for synchronization between the xmit > >> >> function and the xmit completion handler, but since the NETIF_F_LLTX > >> >> flag > >> >> is not set, the xmit function is also called with the xmit_lock held. > >> >> > >> >> On the other hand the xmit completion handler first takes the private > >> >> lock > >> >> and (in case that the tx queue has been stopped) the xmit_lock, leading > >> >> to a reverse locking order and the potential danger of a deadlock. > >> > > >> > netif_tx_stop_queue is used by: > >> > 1. xmit function before releasing lock and returning. > >> > 2. sxgbe_restart_tx_queue() > >> > <- sxgbe_tx_interrupt > >> > <- sxgbe_reset_all_tx_queues() > >> > <- sxgbe_tx_timeout() > >> > > >> > Given xmit won't be called again until tx queue is enabled, it's not > >> > clear > >> > how a deadlock could happen due to #1. > >> > > >> > >> > >> After spending more thoughts on this I tend to agree with you. Yes, we > >> have the > >> different locking order for the xmit_lock and the private lock in two > >> concurrent > >> threads. And one of the first things one learns about locking is that this > >> is a > >> good way to create a deadlock sooner or later. But in our case the > >> deadlock > >> can only occur if the xmit function and the tx completion handler perceive > >> different > >> states for the tx queue, or to be more specific: > >> the completion handler sees the tx queue in state "stopped" while the xmit > >> handler > >> sees it in state "running" at the same time. Only then both functions > >> would try to > >> take both locks, which could lead to a deadlock. > >> > >> OTOH Pavel said that he actually could produce a deadlock. Now I wonder if > >> this is caused > >> by that locking scheme (in a way I have not figured out yet) or if it is a > >> different issue. > > > > Pavel has some problems, but that's on different hardware.. and it is > > possible that it is deadlock (or something else) somewhere else. > > > > Right, it is different hardware. But the locking situation in xmit function > and tx completion handler > is very similar in both drivers. So if a deadlock is not possible in sxgbe it > should > also not be possible in stmmac (at least not due to the different locking > order). > So maybe there is no real issue that we could fix with removing the private > lock and we should > keep it as it is.
Well.. the locking is pretty confused there. Having private lock that
mirrors lock from network layer is confusing and ugly... that should
be reason to fix it.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
