Re: [patch] allow netpoll_poll to be called recursively

[Matt Mackall]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 06:27:44PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Hi, Matt,
> 
> This should fix the recursive netpoll_poll deadlock that can happen with
> the newly introduced netpoll_poll_lock.

I rewrote this to get my head around it:

Index: linux/net/core/netpoll.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/net/core/netpoll.c	2004-08-25 12:29:10.783502466 -0500
+++ linux/net/core/netpoll.c	2004-08-25 20:55:05.468729251 -0500
@@ -72,6 +72,7 @@
 	 * timeouts.  Thus, we set our budget to a more reasonable value.
 	 */
 	int budget = 16;
+	static int poll_owner = -1;
 	unsigned long flags;
 
 	if(!np->dev || !netif_running(np->dev) || !np->dev->poll_controller)
@@ -81,18 +82,33 @@
 	np->dev->poll_controller(np->dev);
 
 	/* If scheduling is stopped, tickle NAPI bits */
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&netpoll_poll_lock, flags);
 	if (np->dev->poll &&
 	    test_bit(__LINK_STATE_RX_SCHED, &np->dev->state)) {
-		np->dev->netpoll_rx |= NETPOLL_RX_DROP;
-		atomic_inc(&trapped);
 
-		np->dev->poll(np->dev, &budget);
+		/* attempt to grab the lock to manipulate the _rx bits */
+		local_irq_save(flags);
 
-		atomic_dec(&trapped);
-		np->dev->netpoll_rx &= ~NETPOLL_RX_DROP;
+		if (smp_processor_id() != poll_owner) {
+			/* we're not the lock owner, wait for the lock */
+			spin_lock(&netpoll_poll_lock);
+			poll_owner = smp_processor_id();
+
+			np->dev->netpoll_rx |= NETPOLL_RX_DROP;
+			atomic_inc(&trapped);
+
+			np->dev->poll(np->dev, &budget);
+
+			atomic_dec(&trapped);
+			np->dev->netpoll_rx &= ~NETPOLL_RX_DROP;
+			poll_owner = -1;
+			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&netpoll_poll_lock, flags);
+		}
+		else {
+			/* we're already holding the lock */
+			np->dev->poll(np->dev, &budget);
+			local_irq_restore(flags);
+		}
 	}
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&netpoll_poll_lock, flags);
 
 	zap_completion_queue();
 }

I think the above matches your intent, let me know if I missed
something. Note your original version would do an unlock in the
recursive invocation even if it didn't do a lock.

But I still don't like this. dev->poll() is liable to attempt to
recursively take its own driver lock again internally and we still
deadlock. Have we already seen recursion here? If we do, I think we
need to fix that in drivers. Meanwhile we should just bail here and
maybe set a "something bad happened" flag.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/