Skip to contentSkip to conversation

rds: rds_cong_queue_updates needs to defer the congestion update transmission

PATCH Superseded Sowmini Varadhan 2 participants 3 messages Feb 10, 2015

Subsystems (3)

v1 of 2 Superseded Latest is v2 →

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 rds: rds_cong_queue_updates needs to defer the congestion update transmission

This patch fixes a sock_lock deadlock in the rds_cong_queue_update path.

We cannot inline the call to rds_send_xmit from rds_cong_queue_update because
(a) we are already holding the sock_lock in the recv path, and will deadlock when tcp_setsockopt/tcp_sendmsg try to get the sock lock
(b) cong_queue_update does an irqsave on the rds_cong_lock, and this will trigger warnings (for a good reason) from functions called out of sock_lock.

---
 net/rds/cong.c |   16 +++++++++++++++-
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
net/rds/cong.c +15 -1
index e5b65ac..765d18f 100644
@@ -221,7 +221,21 @@ void rds_cong_queue_updates(struct rds_cong_map *map)
 	list_for_each_entry(conn, &map->m_conn_list, c_map_item) {
 		if (!test_and_set_bit(0, &conn->c_map_queued)) {
 			rds_stats_inc(s_cong_update_queued);
-			rds_send_xmit(conn);
+			/* We cannot inline the call to rds_send_xmit() here
+			 * for two reasons:
+			 * 1. When we get here from the receive path, we
+			 *    are already holding the sock_lock (held by
+			 *    tcp_v4_rcv()). So inlining calls to
+			 *    tcp_setsockopt and/or tcp_sendmsg will deadlock
+			 *    when it tries to get the sock_lock())
+			 * 2. Interrupts are masked so that we can mark the
+			 *    the port congested from both send and recv paths.
+			 *    (See comment around declaration of rds_cong_lock).
+			 *    An attempt to get the sock_lock() here will
+			 *    therefore trigger warnings.
+			 * Defer the xmit to rds_send_worker() instead.
+			 */
+			queue_delayed_work(rds_wq, &conn->c_send_w, 0);
 		}
 	}
 
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1
#1 lore raw
Quoted 2 lines · Sowmini Varadhan

This patch fixes a sock_lock deadlock in the rds_cong_queue_update path.

Note that the deadlock appears to exist only with TCP transports.

Quoted 44 lines

We cannot inline the call to rds_send_xmit from rds_cong_queue_update because
(a) we are already holding the sock_lock in the recv path, and will deadlock when tcp_setsockopt/tcp_sendmsg try to get the sock lock
(b) cong_queue_update does an irqsave on the rds_cong_lock, and this will trigger warnings (for a good reason) from functions called out of sock_lock.

---
net/rds/cong.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-

1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
net/rds/cong.c +15 -1
index e5b65ac..765d18f 100644
@@ -221,7 +221,21 @@ void rds_cong_queue_updates(struct rds_cong_map *map)
 	list_for_each_entry(conn, &map->m_conn_list, c_map_item) {
 		if (!test_and_set_bit(0, &conn->c_map_queued)) {
 			rds_stats_inc(s_cong_update_queued);
-			rds_send_xmit(conn);
+			/* We cannot inline the call to rds_send_xmit() here
+			 * for two reasons:
+			 * 1. When we get here from the receive path, we
+			 *    are already holding the sock_lock (held by
+			 *    tcp_v4_rcv()). So inlining calls to
+			 *    tcp_setsockopt and/or tcp_sendmsg will deadlock
+			 *    when it tries to get the sock_lock())
+			 * 2. Interrupts are masked so that we can mark the
+			 *    the port congested from both send and recv paths.
+			 *    (See comment around declaration of rds_cong_lock).
+			 *    An attempt to get the sock_lock() here will
+			 *    therefore trigger warnings.
+			 * Defer the xmit to rds_send_worker() instead.
+			 */
+			queue_delayed_work(rds_wq, &conn->c_send_w, 0);
 		}
 	}
 
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com

#2 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Chuck Lever
Quoted 2 lines

This patch fixes a sock_lock deadlock in the rds_cong_queue_update path.

Note that the deadlock appears to exist only with TCP transports.

True, but the patch does no harm to IB: this actually only reverts the change from commit 2fa57129d.

I could update the comment to note that this is only true for TCP transports. Do you think that would help?

--Sowmini