On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 07:28:49PM -0700, Nambiar, Amritha wrote:
> On 7/4/2018 12:20 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > Hello Amritha,
> >
> > I see a following warning on 4.18.0-rc3-next-20180703.
> > It looks like a problem is in this series.
> >
> > [ 1.084722] ============================================
> > [ 1.084797] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > [ 1.084872] 4.18.0-rc3-next-20180703+ #1 Not tainted
> > [ 1.084949] --------------------------------------------
> > [ 1.085024] swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 1.085100] 00000000cf973d46 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at:
> > static_key_slow_inc+0xe/0x20
> > [ 1.085189]
> > [ 1.085189] but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 1.085271] 00000000cf973d46 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at:
> > init_vqs+0x513/0x5a0
> > [ 1.085357]
> > [ 1.085357] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 1.085450] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 1.085450]
> > [ 1.085531] CPU0
> > [ 1.085605] ----
> > [ 1.085679] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> > [ 1.085753] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> > [ 1.085828]
> > [ 1.085828] *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [ 1.085828]
> > [ 1.085916] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> > [ 1.085916]
> > [ 1.085998] 3 locks held by swapper/0/1:
> > [ 1.086074] #0: 00000000244bc7da (&dev->mutex){....}, at:
> > __driver_attach+0x5a/0x110
> > [ 1.086164] #1: 00000000cf973d46 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at:
> > init_vqs+0x513/0x5a0
> > [ 1.086248] #2: 000000005cd8463f (xps_map_mutex){+.+.}, at:
> > __netif_set_xps_queue+0x8d/0xc60
> > [ 1.086336]
> > [ 1.086336] stack backtrace:
> > [ 1.086419] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
> > 4.18.0-rc3-next-20180703+ #1
> > [ 1.086504] Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute
> > Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> > [ 1.086587] Call Trace:
> > [ 1.086667] dump_stack+0x85/0xcb
> > [ 1.086744] __lock_acquire+0x68a/0x1330
> > [ 1.086821] ? lock_acquire+0x9f/0x200
> > [ 1.086900] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x90
> > [ 1.086976] ? lock_acquire+0x9f/0x200
> > [ 1.087051] lock_acquire+0x9f/0x200
> > [ 1.087126] ? static_key_slow_inc+0xe/0x20
> > [ 1.087205] cpus_read_lock+0x3e/0x80
> > [ 1.087280] ? static_key_slow_inc+0xe/0x20
> > [ 1.087355] static_key_slow_inc+0xe/0x20
> > [ 1.087435] __netif_set_xps_queue+0x216/0xc60
> > [ 1.087512] virtnet_set_affinity+0xf0/0x130
> > [ 1.087589] init_vqs+0x51b/0x5a0
> > [ 1.087665] virtnet_probe+0x39f/0x870
> > [ 1.087742] virtio_dev_probe+0x170/0x220
> > [ 1.087819] driver_probe_device+0x30b/0x480
> > [ 1.087897] ? set_debug_rodata+0x11/0x11
> > [ 1.087972] __driver_attach+0xe0/0x110
> > [ 1.088064] ? driver_probe_device+0x480/0x480
> > [ 1.088141] bus_for_each_dev+0x79/0xc0
> > [ 1.088221] bus_add_driver+0x164/0x260
> > [ 1.088302] ? veth_init+0x11/0x11
> > [ 1.088379] driver_register+0x5b/0xe0
> > [ 1.088402] ? veth_init+0x11/0x11
> > [ 1.088402] virtio_net_driver_init+0x6d/0x90
> > [ 1.088402] do_one_initcall+0x5d/0x34c
> > [ 1.088402] ? set_debug_rodata+0x11/0x11
> > [ 1.088402] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x6b/0x80
> > [ 1.088402] kernel_init_freeable+0x1ea/0x27b
> > [ 1.088402] ? rest_init+0xd0/0xd0
> > [ 1.088402] kernel_init+0xa/0x110
> > [ 1.088402] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> > [ 1.094190] i8042: PNP: PS/2 Controller [PNP0303:KBD,PNP0f13:MOU] at
> > 0x60,0x64 irq 1,12
> >
> >
> > https://travis-ci.org/avagin/linux/jobs/399867744
> >
>
> With this patch series, I introduced static_key for XPS maps
> (xps_needed), so static_key_slow_inc() is used to switch branches. The
> definition of static_key_slow_inc() has cpus_read_lock in place. In the
> virtio_net driver, XPS queues are initialized after setting the
> queue:cpu affinity in virtnet_set_affinity() which is already protected
> within cpus_read_lock. Hence, the warning here trying to acquire
> cpus_read_lock when it is already held.
>
> A quick fix for this would be to just extract netif_set_xps_queue() out
> of the lock by simply wrapping it with another put/get_online_cpus
> (unlock right before and hold lock right after). But this may not a
> clean solution. It'd help if I can get suggestions on what would be a
> clean option to fix this without extensively changing the code in
> virtio_net. Is it mandatory to protect the affinitization with
> read_lock? I don't see similar lock in other drivers while setting the
> affinity.
> I understand this warning should go away, but isn't it safe to
> have multiple readers.
Peter and Ingo, maybe you could explain why it isn't safe to take one
reader lock twice?
Thanks,
Andrei
>
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:27:07PM -0700, Amritha Nambiar wrote:
> >> Extend transmit queue sysfs attribute to configure Rx queue(s) map
> >> per Tx queue. By default no receive queues are configured for the
> >> Tx queue.
> >>
> >> - /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/tx-*/xps_rxqs
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Amritha Nambiar <amritha.namb...@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> net/core/net-sysfs.c | 83
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/core/net-sysfs.c b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
> >> index b39987c..f25ac5f 100644
> >> --- a/net/core/net-sysfs.c
> >> +++ b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
> >> @@ -1283,6 +1283,88 @@ static ssize_t xps_cpus_store(struct netdev_queue
> >> *queue,
> >>
> >> static struct netdev_queue_attribute xps_cpus_attribute __ro_after_init
> >> = __ATTR_RW(xps_cpus);
> >> +
> >> +static ssize_t xps_rxqs_show(struct netdev_queue *queue, char *buf)
> >> +{
> >> + struct net_device *dev = queue->dev;
> >> + struct xps_dev_maps *dev_maps;
> >> + unsigned long *mask, index;
> >> + int j, len, num_tc = 1, tc = 0;
> >> +
> >> + index = get_netdev_queue_index(queue);
> >> +
> >> + if (dev->num_tc) {
> >> + num_tc = dev->num_tc;
> >> + tc = netdev_txq_to_tc(dev, index);
> >> + if (tc < 0)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> + mask = kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(dev->num_rx_queues), sizeof(long),
> >> + GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!mask)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + rcu_read_lock();
> >> + dev_maps = rcu_dereference(dev->xps_rxqs_map);
> >> + if (!dev_maps)
> >> + goto out_no_maps;
> >> +
> >> + for (j = -1; j = netif_attrmask_next(j, NULL, dev->num_rx_queues),
> >> + j < dev->num_rx_queues;) {
> >> + int i, tci = j * num_tc + tc;
> >> + struct xps_map *map;
> >> +
> >> + map = rcu_dereference(dev_maps->attr_map[tci]);
> >> + if (!map)
> >> + continue;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = map->len; i--;) {
> >> + if (map->queues[i] == index) {
> >> + set_bit(j, mask);
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +out_no_maps:
> >> + rcu_read_unlock();
> >> +
> >> + len = bitmap_print_to_pagebuf(false, buf, mask, dev->num_rx_queues);
> >> + kfree(mask);
> >> +
> >> + return len < PAGE_SIZE ? len : -EINVAL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static ssize_t xps_rxqs_store(struct netdev_queue *queue, const char *buf,
> >> + size_t len)
> >> +{
> >> + struct net_device *dev = queue->dev;
> >> + struct net *net = dev_net(dev);
> >> + unsigned long *mask, index;
> >> + int err;
> >> +
> >> + if (!ns_capable(net->user_ns, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> >> + return -EPERM;
> >> +
> >> + mask = kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(dev->num_rx_queues), sizeof(long),
> >> + GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!mask)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + index = get_netdev_queue_index(queue);
> >> +
> >> + err = bitmap_parse(buf, len, mask, dev->num_rx_queues);
> >> + if (err) {
> >> + kfree(mask);
> >> + return err;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + err = __netif_set_xps_queue(dev, mask, index, true);
> >> + kfree(mask);
> >> + return err ? : len;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static struct netdev_queue_attribute xps_rxqs_attribute __ro_after_init
> >> + = __ATTR_RW(xps_rxqs);
> >> #endif /* CONFIG_XPS */
> >>
> >> static struct attribute *netdev_queue_default_attrs[] __ro_after_init = {
> >> @@ -1290,6 +1372,7 @@ static struct attribute
> >> *netdev_queue_default_attrs[] __ro_after_init = {
> >> &queue_traffic_class.attr,
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_XPS
> >> &xps_cpus_attribute.attr,
> >> + &xps_rxqs_attribute.attr,
> >> &queue_tx_maxrate.attr,
> >> #endif
> >> NULL
