On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:42:37PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> del_timer_sync(&nbd->timeout_timer);
> +
> +out:
> + spin_unlock_irq(&nbd->sock_lock);
... and in its callback we have this:
> @@ -148,17 +155,15 @@ static void nbd_xmit_timeout(unsigned long arg)
>
> nbd->disconnect = true;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&nbd->tasks_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&nbd->sock_lock, flags);
* CPU 1 enters sock_shutdown() and grabs ->sock_lock.
* on CPU2 the timer hits and we enter the callback, where we spin on that
spinlock.
* in the meanwhile, CPU1 calls del_timer_sync()
Deadlock...
Hi,
On Tuesday 10 November 2015 04:46:18 Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:42:37PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> > del_timer_sync(&nbd->timeout_timer);
> > +
> > +out:
> > + spin_unlock_irq(&nbd->sock_lock);
>
> ... and in its callback we have this:
>
> > @@ -148,17 +155,15 @@ static void nbd_xmit_timeout(unsigned long arg)
> >
> > nbd->disconnect = true;
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&nbd->tasks_lock, flags);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&nbd->sock_lock, flags);
>
> * CPU 1 enters sock_shutdown() and grabs ->sock_lock.
> * on CPU2 the timer hits and we enter the callback, where we spin on that
> spinlock.
> * in the meanwhile, CPU1 calls del_timer_sync()
>
> Deadlock...
Thank you. Yes that locking block in sock_shutdown is to large. And probably
the del_timer_sync() isn't necessary, we can just use del_timer().
It may even be possible to remove the sock_lock completely. Will look into this
and post a v2.
Thanks,
Markus
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |