Re: 2.6.24-rc6: possible recursive locking detected

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

[Cyrill Gorcunov - Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:44:42AM +0300]
| [Davide Libenzi - Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:35:25PM -0800]
| | On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
| | 
| [...snip...] 
| | I remember I talked with Arjan about this time ago. Basically, since 1) 
| | you can drop an epoll fd inside another epoll fd 2) callback-based wakeups 
| | are used, you can see a wake_up() from inside another wake_up(), but they 
| | will never refer to the same lock instance.
| | Think about:
| | 
| | 	dfd = socket(...);
| | 	efd1 = epoll_create();
| | 	efd2 = epoll_create();
| | 	epoll_ctl(efd1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, dfd, ...);
| | 	epoll_ctl(efd2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd1, ...);
| | 
| | When a packet arrives to the device underneath "dfd", the net code will 
| | issue a wake_up() on its poll wake list. Epoll (efd1) has installed a 
| | callback wakeup entry on that queue, and the wake_up() performed by the 
| | "dfd" net code will end up in ep_poll_callback(). At this point epoll 
| | (efd1) notices that it may have some event ready, so it needs to wake up 
| | the waiters on its poll wait list (efd2). So it calls ep_poll_safewake() 
| | that ends up in another wake_up(), after having checked about the 
| | recursion constraints. That are, no more than EP_MAX_POLLWAKE_NESTS, to 
| | avoid stack blasting. Never hit the same queue, to avoid loops like:
| | 
| | 	epoll_ctl(efd2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd1, ...);
| | 	epoll_ctl(efd3, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd2, ...);
| | 	epoll_ctl(efd4, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd3, ...);
| | 	epoll_ctl(efd1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd4, ...);
| | 
| | The code "if (tncur->wq == wq || ..." prevents re-entering the same 
| | queue/lock.
| | I don't know how the lockdep code works, so I can't say about 
| | wake_up_nested(). Although I have a feeling is not enough in this case.
| | A solution may be to move the call to ep_poll_safewake() (that'd become a 
| | simple wake_up()) inside a tasklet or whatever is today trendy for delayed 
| | work. But his kinda scares me to be honest, since epoll has already a 
| | bunch of places where it could be asynchronously hit (plus performance 
| | regression will need to be verified).
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | - Davide
| | 
| | 
| 
| it's quite possible that i'm wrong but just interested...
| why in ep_poll_safewake() the assignment
| 
| 	struct list_head *lsthead = &psw->wake_task_list;
| 
| is not protected by spinlock?
| 
| 		- Cyrill -

it was a completely stupid question... please drop ;)

		- Cyrill -
--
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/