On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:26:22 +0100 (BST)
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > 2. The driver uses schedule_work() for handling interrupts, but does not
> > > make sure any pending work scheduled thus has been completed before
> > > driver's structures get freed from memory. This is especially
> > > important as interrupts may keep arriving if the line is shared with
> > > another PHY.
> > >
> > > The solution is to ignore phy_interrupt() calls if the reported device
> > > has already been halted and calling flush_scheduled_work() from
> > > phy_stop_interrupts() (but guarded with current_is_keventd() in case
> > > the function has been called through keventd from the MAC device's
> > > close call to avoid a deadlock on the netlink lock).
> > >
> >
> > eww, hack.
> >
> > Also not module-friendly:
> >
> > WARNING: "current_is_keventd" [drivers/net/phy/libphy.ko] undefined!
> >
> > Does this
> >
> > static void flush_cpu_workqueue(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq)
> > {
> > if (cwq->thread == current) {
> > /*
> > * Probably keventd trying to flush its own queue. So simply run
> > * it by hand rather than deadlocking.
> > */
> > run_workqueue(cwq);
> >
> > not work???
>
> It does, too well even! -- in the case I am trying to take care of we are
> run with "rtnl_mutex" held as a result of rtnl_lock() called from
> unregister_netdev() and there is some work already in the workqueue
> (linkwatch_event(), apparently) wanting to acquire the same lock. Hence a
> deadlock.
I don't get it. If some code does
rtnl_lock();
flush_scheduled_work();
and there's some work scheduled which does rtnl_lock() then it'll deadlock.
But it'll deadlock whether or not the caller of flush_scheduled_work() is
keventd.
Calling flush_scheduled_work() under locks is generally a bad idea.
> It seems problematic elsewhere as well -- see tg3.c -- but a
> different way to deal with it has been found there.
>
> I am not that fond of this solution, but at least it works, unlike
> calling flush_scheduled_work() here, which deadlocks the current CPU in my
> system instantly. Any suggestions as to how to do this differently?
> Perhaps linkwatch_event() should be scheduled differently (using a
> separate workqueue?)...
I'd have thought that was still deadlockable. Could you describe the
deadlock more completely please?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
