diff mbox series

[net-next,v3,15/16] net/mlx5e: take the rtnl lock when calling netif_set_xps_queue

Message ID 20210312150444.355207-16-atenart@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series net: xps: improve the xps maps handling | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/cover_letter success Link
netdev/fixes_present success Link
netdev/patch_count fail Series longer than 15 patches
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net-next
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 2 maintainers not CCed: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org leon@kernel.org
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Link
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/verify_fixes success Link
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 25 lines checked
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/header_inline success Link

Commit Message

Antoine Tenart March 12, 2021, 3:04 p.m. UTC
netif_set_xps_queue must be called with the rtnl lock taken, and this is
now enforced using ASSERT_RTNL(). mlx5e_attach_netdev was taking the
lock conditionally, fix this by taking the rtnl lock all the time.

Signed-off-by: Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Comments

Saeed Mahameed March 12, 2021, 8:54 p.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, 2021-03-12 at 16:04 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> netif_set_xps_queue must be called with the rtnl lock taken, and this
> is
> now enforced using ASSERT_RTNL(). mlx5e_attach_netdev was taking the
> lock conditionally, fix this by taking the rtnl lock all the time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c | 11 +++--------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> index ec2fcb2a2977..96cba86b9f0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> @@ -5557,7 +5557,6 @@ static void mlx5e_update_features(struct
> net_device *netdev)
>  
>  int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv)
>  {
> -       const bool take_rtnl = priv->netdev->reg_state ==
> NETREG_REGISTERED;
>         const struct mlx5e_profile *profile = priv->profile;
>         int max_nch;
>         int err;
> @@ -5578,15 +5577,11 @@ int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv
> *priv)
>          * 2. Set our default XPS cpumask.
>          * 3. Build the RQT.
>          *
> -        * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_real_num_*_queues in case
> the
> -        * netdev has been registered by this point (if this function
> was called
> -        * in the reload or resume flow).
> +        * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_xps_queue.
>          */

There is a reason why it is conditional:
we had a bug in the past of double locking here:

[ 4255.283960] echo/644 is trying to acquire lock:

 [ 4255.285092] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
mlx5e_attach_netdev0xd4/0×3d0 [mlx5_core]

 [ 4255.287264] 

 [ 4255.287264] but task is already holding lock:

 [ 4255.288971] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
ipoib_vlan_add0×7c/0×2d0 [ib_ipoib]

ipoib_vlan_add is called under rtnl and will eventually call 
mlx5e_attach_netdev, we don't have much control over this in mlx5
driver since the rdma stack provides a per-prepared netdev to attach to
our hw. maybe it is time we had a nested rtnl lock .. 

> -       if (take_rtnl)
> -               rtnl_lock();
> +       rtnl_lock();
>         err = mlx5e_num_channels_changed(priv);
> -       if (take_rtnl)
> -               rtnl_unlock();
> +       rtnl_unlock();
>         if (err)
>                 goto out;
>
Antoine Tenart March 15, 2021, 8:38 a.m. UTC | #2
Quoting Saeed Mahameed (2021-03-12 21:54:18)
> On Fri, 2021-03-12 at 16:04 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > netif_set_xps_queue must be called with the rtnl lock taken, and this
> > is
> > now enforced using ASSERT_RTNL(). mlx5e_attach_netdev was taking the
> > lock conditionally, fix this by taking the rtnl lock all the time.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c | 11 +++--------
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> > index ec2fcb2a2977..96cba86b9f0d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> > @@ -5557,7 +5557,6 @@ static void mlx5e_update_features(struct
> > net_device *netdev)
> >  
> >  int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv)
> >  {
> > -       const bool take_rtnl = priv->netdev->reg_state ==
> > NETREG_REGISTERED;
> >         const struct mlx5e_profile *profile = priv->profile;
> >         int max_nch;
> >         int err;
> > @@ -5578,15 +5577,11 @@ int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv
> > *priv)
> >          * 2. Set our default XPS cpumask.
> >          * 3. Build the RQT.
> >          *
> > -        * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_real_num_*_queues in case
> > the
> > -        * netdev has been registered by this point (if this function
> > was called
> > -        * in the reload or resume flow).
> > +        * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_xps_queue.
> >          */
> 
> There is a reason why it is conditional:
> we had a bug in the past of double locking here:
> 
> [ 4255.283960] echo/644 is trying to acquire lock:
> 
>  [ 4255.285092] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
> mlx5e_attach_netdev0xd4/0×3d0 [mlx5_core]
> 
>  [ 4255.287264] 
> 
>  [ 4255.287264] but task is already holding lock:
> 
>  [ 4255.288971] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
> ipoib_vlan_add0×7c/0×2d0 [ib_ipoib]
> 
> ipoib_vlan_add is called under rtnl and will eventually call 
> mlx5e_attach_netdev, we don't have much control over this in mlx5
> driver since the rdma stack provides a per-prepared netdev to attach to
> our hw. maybe it is time we had a nested rtnl lock .. 

Thanks for the explanation. So as you said, we can't based the locking
decision only on the driver own state / information...

What about `take_rtnl = !rtnl_is_locked();`?

Thanks!
Antoine
Maxim Mikityanskiy March 15, 2021, 2:53 p.m. UTC | #3
On 2021-03-15 10:38, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> Quoting Saeed Mahameed (2021-03-12 21:54:18)
>> On Fri, 2021-03-12 at 16:04 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
>>> netif_set_xps_queue must be called with the rtnl lock taken, and this
>>> is
>>> now enforced using ASSERT_RTNL(). mlx5e_attach_netdev was taking the
>>> lock conditionally, fix this by taking the rtnl lock all the time.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c | 11 +++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
>>> index ec2fcb2a2977..96cba86b9f0d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
>>> @@ -5557,7 +5557,6 @@ static void mlx5e_update_features(struct
>>> net_device *netdev)
>>>   
>>>   int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv)
>>>   {
>>> -       const bool take_rtnl = priv->netdev->reg_state ==
>>> NETREG_REGISTERED;
>>>          const struct mlx5e_profile *profile = priv->profile;
>>>          int max_nch;
>>>          int err;
>>> @@ -5578,15 +5577,11 @@ int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv
>>> *priv)
>>>           * 2. Set our default XPS cpumask.
>>>           * 3. Build the RQT.
>>>           *
>>> -        * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_real_num_*_queues in case
>>> the
>>> -        * netdev has been registered by this point (if this function
>>> was called
>>> -        * in the reload or resume flow).
>>> +        * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_xps_queue.
>>>           */
>>
>> There is a reason why it is conditional:
>> we had a bug in the past of double locking here:
>>
>> [ 4255.283960] echo/644 is trying to acquire lock:
>>
>>   [ 4255.285092] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
>> mlx5e_attach_netdev0xd4/0×3d0 [mlx5_core]
>>
>>   [ 4255.287264]
>>
>>   [ 4255.287264] but task is already holding lock:
>>
>>   [ 4255.288971] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
>> ipoib_vlan_add0×7c/0×2d0 [ib_ipoib]
>>
>> ipoib_vlan_add is called under rtnl and will eventually call
>> mlx5e_attach_netdev, we don't have much control over this in mlx5
>> driver since the rdma stack provides a per-prepared netdev to attach to
>> our hw. maybe it is time we had a nested rtnl lock ..
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. So as you said, we can't based the locking
> decision only on the driver own state / information...
> 
> What about `take_rtnl = !rtnl_is_locked();`?

It won't work, because the lock may be taken by some other unrelated 
thread. By doing `if (!rtnl_is_locked()) rtnl_lock()` we defeat the 
purpose of the lock, because we will proceed to the critical section 
even if we should wait until some other thread releases the lock.

> Thanks!
> Antoine
>
Antoine Tenart March 15, 2021, 3:13 p.m. UTC | #4
Quoting Maxim Mikityanskiy (2021-03-15 15:53:02)
> On 2021-03-15 10:38, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > Quoting Saeed Mahameed (2021-03-12 21:54:18)
> >> There is a reason why it is conditional:
> >> we had a bug in the past of double locking here:
> >>
> >> [ 4255.283960] echo/644 is trying to acquire lock:
> >>
> >>   [ 4255.285092] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
> >> mlx5e_attach_netdev0xd4/0×3d0 [mlx5_core]
> >>
> >>   [ 4255.287264]
> >>
> >>   [ 4255.287264] but task is already holding lock:
> >>
> >>   [ 4255.288971] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
> >> ipoib_vlan_add0×7c/0×2d0 [ib_ipoib]
> >>
> >> ipoib_vlan_add is called under rtnl and will eventually call
> >> mlx5e_attach_netdev, we don't have much control over this in mlx5
> >> driver since the rdma stack provides a per-prepared netdev to attach to
> >> our hw. maybe it is time we had a nested rtnl lock ..
> > 
> > Thanks for the explanation. So as you said, we can't based the locking
> > decision only on the driver own state / information...
> > 
> > What about `take_rtnl = !rtnl_is_locked();`?
> 
> It won't work, because the lock may be taken by some other unrelated 
> thread. By doing `if (!rtnl_is_locked()) rtnl_lock()` we defeat the 
> purpose of the lock, because we will proceed to the critical section 
> even if we should wait until some other thread releases the lock.

Ah, that's right...
Antoine Tenart March 17, 2021, 8:55 a.m. UTC | #5
Quoting Saeed Mahameed (2021-03-12 21:54:18)
> On Fri, 2021-03-12 at 16:04 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > netif_set_xps_queue must be called with the rtnl lock taken, and this
> > is
> > now enforced using ASSERT_RTNL(). mlx5e_attach_netdev was taking the
> > lock conditionally, fix this by taking the rtnl lock all the time.
> 
> There is a reason why it is conditional:
> we had a bug in the past of double locking here:
> 
> [ 4255.283960] echo/644 is trying to acquire lock:
> 
>  [ 4255.285092] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
> mlx5e_attach_netdev0xd4/0×3d0 [mlx5_core]
> 
>  [ 4255.287264] 
> 
>  [ 4255.287264] but task is already holding lock:
> 
>  [ 4255.288971] ffffffff85101f90 (rtnl_mutex){+..}, at:
> ipoib_vlan_add0×7c/0×2d0 [ib_ipoib]
> 
> ipoib_vlan_add is called under rtnl and will eventually call 
> mlx5e_attach_netdev, we don't have much control over this in mlx5
> driver since the rdma stack provides a per-prepared netdev to attach to
> our hw. maybe it is time we had a nested rtnl lock .. 

Not sure we want to add a nested rtnl lock because of xps. I'd like to
see other options first. Could be having a locking mechanism for xps not
relying on rtnl; if that's possible.

As for this series, patches 6, 15 (this one) and 16 are not linked to
and do not rely on the other patches. They're improvement or fixes for
already existing behaviours. The series already gained enough new
patches since v1 and I don't want to maintain it out-of-tree for too
long, so I'll resend it without patches 6, 15 and 16; and then we'll be
able to focus on the xps locking relationship with rtnl.

Antoine
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
index ec2fcb2a2977..96cba86b9f0d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
@@ -5557,7 +5557,6 @@  static void mlx5e_update_features(struct net_device *netdev)
 
 int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv)
 {
-	const bool take_rtnl = priv->netdev->reg_state == NETREG_REGISTERED;
 	const struct mlx5e_profile *profile = priv->profile;
 	int max_nch;
 	int err;
@@ -5578,15 +5577,11 @@  int mlx5e_attach_netdev(struct mlx5e_priv *priv)
 	 * 2. Set our default XPS cpumask.
 	 * 3. Build the RQT.
 	 *
-	 * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_real_num_*_queues in case the
-	 * netdev has been registered by this point (if this function was called
-	 * in the reload or resume flow).
+	 * rtnl_lock is required by netif_set_xps_queue.
 	 */
-	if (take_rtnl)
-		rtnl_lock();
+	rtnl_lock();
 	err = mlx5e_num_channels_changed(priv);
-	if (take_rtnl)
-		rtnl_unlock();
+	rtnl_unlock();
 	if (err)
 		goto out;