Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:51:19 -0700 From: Weongyo Jeong <weongyo.jeong@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Weongyo Jeong <weongyo@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: about in_multi_mtx @ netinet/in_mcast.c:1095 Message-ID: <20100911215119.GJ1328@weongyo> In-Reply-To: <201009101717.39508.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20100908201419.GF1328@weongyo> <201009091432.52066.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100910202858.GI1328@weongyo> <201009101717.39508.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 05:17:39PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, September 10, 2010 4:28:58 pm Weongyo Jeong wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:32:52PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 09, 2010 1:41:46 pm Weongyo Jeong wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 09:36:19AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:14:19 pm Weongyo Jeong wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a question about IN_MULTI_LOCK() because it uses MTX_DEF flag > > > > > > when it's initialized so I always encounters the following LOR > > > > > > > > > > > > lock order reversal: (sleepable after non-sleepable) > > > > > > 1st 0xffffffff80d0b560 in_multi_mtx (in_multi_mtx) @ > > > > > netinet/in_mcast.c:1095 > > > > > > 2nd 0xffffff00014e3850 USB device SX lock (USB device SX lock) @ > > > > > > > > > /usr/home/freebsd_usb/sys/modules/usb/usb/../../../dev/usb/usb_request.c:441 > > > > > > KDB: stack backtrace: > > > > > > db_trace_self_wrapper() at db_trace_self_wrapper+0x2a > > > > > > _witness_debugger() at _witness_debugger+0x2e > > > > > > witness_checkorder() at witness_checkorder+0x807 > > > > > > _sx_xlock() at _sx_xlock+0x55 > > > > > > usbd_do_request_flags() at usbd_do_request_flags+0xe5 > > > > > > axe_cmd() at axe_cmd+0xc7 > > > > > > axe_setmulti_locked() at axe_setmulti_locked+0x70 > > > > > > axe_setmulti() at axe_setmulti+0x3e > > > > > > axe_ioctl() at axe_ioctl+0x132 > > > > > > if_addmulti() at if_addmulti+0x19b > > > > > > in_joingroup_locked() at in_joingroup_locked+0x1bc > > > > > > in_joingroup() at in_joingroup+0x52 > > > > > > in_control() at in_control+0x1144 > > > > > > ifioctl() at ifioctl+0x1118 > > > > > > kern_ioctl() at kern_ioctl+0xbe > > > > > > ioctl() at ioctl+0xfd > > > > > > syscallenter() at syscallenter+0x1aa > > > > > > syscall() at syscall+0x4c > > > > > > Xfast_syscall() at Xfast_syscall+0xe2 > > > > > > > > > > > > when I uses the following code at driver's ioctl routine: > > > > > > > > > > > > case SIOCADDMULTI: > > > > > > case SIOCDELMULTI: > > > > > > axe_setmulti(sc, 0); > > > > > > break; > > > > > > > > > > > > It means that USB driver always should defer SIOCADDMULTI / > > > > > > SIOCDELMULTI handling to the other process context to avoid LOR. > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is that is it safe if the multicasting operations for > USB > > > > > > device happens without IN_MULTI_LOCK? Or is there any race cases if > the > > > > > > task is deferred? > > > > > > > > > > Why is USB using an sx lock instead of a mutex? > > > > > > > > Frankly speaking I also don't know why hps@ uses sx lock. That is one > > > > of things I'd like to change it. > > > > > > > > Just looking the comment at usb_request.c@441: > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * Grab the default sx-lock so that serialisation > > > > * is achieved when multiple threads are involved: > > > > */ > > > > sx_xlock(&udev->ctrl_sx); > > > > > > > > I think he might want to hold the lock even if the thread is going into > > > > sleep. It might be for serialization. > > > > > > > > However even if we succeed to change the lock from sx to mutex, it's > > > > hard to avoid the requests going into the sleep. It means USB stack > > > > should call like below: > > > > > > > > mtx_sleep(chan, IN_MULTI_LOCK, ...); > > > > > > > > to avoid the kernel's complain (would be `sleep with holding > > > > non-sleepable lock'). > > > > > > > > What I'd like to say is that the sleeping is big problem if mutex is > > > > used that it'd be worse when multiple mutex locks are used. > > > > > > > > So I'm looking for a fundamental solution to solve this problem. > > > > Welcomes any ideas. > > > > > > It is probably fine to just schedule a task to do the actual work of > > > axe_setmulti(). I think you do not need to lock IN_MULTI_LOCK yourself in > > > your task handler as long as your handler holds the appropriate lock > > > (if_maddr_rlock() IIRC) when walking the interface's multicast address > list. > > > > OK. I'll try to use a task handler for this case. > > > > One thing, just for curious. Why the lower layer (in this case it might > > be netinet/in_mcast.c) calls ioctl interface with holding IN_MULTI_LOCK? > > If it calls ioctl without holding the lock, all drivers (specially all > > USB drivers) which handles SIOCADDMULTI and SIOCDELMULTI don't need to > > implement their own taskqueue or process context. > > > > It looks to me that calling ioctl interface with holding IN_MULTI_LOCK > > is useless if the drivers hold if_maddr_rlock(ifp) lock properly though > > I could miss something important. > > It would introduce races in the multicast code to drop the lock around the > ioctl which would complicate it a good bit. Non-USB ethernet drivers just use > plain locks which handle this situation just fine. OK I see. Thank you for explanation. regards, Weongyo Jeong
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100911215119.GJ1328>