From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
"Ziyang Xuan (William)" <william.xuanziyang@huawei.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] can: isotp: isotp_rcv_cf(): fix so->rx race problem
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 15:48:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07c69ccd-dbc0-5c74-c68e-8636ec9179ef@hartkopp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220128084603.jvrvapqf5dt57yiq@pengutronix.de>
Hello Marc, hello William,
On 28.01.22 09:46, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 28.01.2022 09:32:40, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28.01.22 09:07, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>> On 28.01.2022 08:56:19, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>> I've seen the frame processing sometimes freezes for one second when
>>>> stressing the isotp_rcv() from multiple sources. This finally freezes
>>>> the entire softirq which is either not good and not needed as we only
>>>> need to fix this race for stress tests - and not for real world usage
>>>> that does not create this case.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, this doesn't sound good. Can you test with LOCKDEP enabled?
>> #
>> # Lock Debugging (spinlocks, mutexes, etc...)
>> #
>> CONFIG_LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT=y
>> # CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING is not set
> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y
Now enabled even more locking (seen relevant kernel config at the end).
It turns out that there is no visible difference when using spin_lock()
or spin_trylock().
I only got some of these kernel log entries
Jan 28 11:13:14 silver kernel: [ 2396.323211] perf: interrupt took too
long (2549 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 78250
Jan 28 11:25:49 silver kernel: [ 3151.172773] perf: interrupt took too
long (3188 > 3186), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 62500
Jan 28 11:45:24 silver kernel: [ 4325.583328] perf: interrupt took too
long (4009 > 3985), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 49750
Jan 28 12:15:46 silver kernel: [ 6148.238246] perf: interrupt took too
long (5021 > 5011), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 39750
Jan 28 13:01:45 silver kernel: [ 8907.303715] perf: interrupt took too
long (6285 > 6276), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 31750
But I get these sporadically anyway. No other LOCKDEP splat.
At least the issue reported by William should be fixed now - but I'm
still unclear whether spin_lock() or spin_trylock() is the best approach
here in the NET_RX softirq?!?
Best regards,
Oliver
$ grep LOCK .config | grep -v BLOCK | grep -v CLOCK
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
# CONFIG_PM_WAKELOCKS is not set
CONFIG_HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF=y
# CONFIG_LOCK_EVENT_COUNTS is not set
CONFIG_UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK=y
CONFIG_LOCK_SPIN_ON_OWNER=y
CONFIG_ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS=y
CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS=y
CONFIG_ARCH_USE_QUEUED_RWLOCKS=y
CONFIG_QUEUED_RWLOCKS=y
CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS=4
CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK=y
CONFIG_PCI_LOCKLESS_CONFIG=y
# CONFIG_DRM_DEBUG_MODESET_LOCK is not set
CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK=y
CONFIG_I8253_LOCK=y
CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=y
# CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM is not set
# CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK is not set
# CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_PADLOCK is not set
CONFIG_ARCH_USE_CMPXCHG_LOCKREF=y
CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
# CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_SOFTLOCKUP_PANIC is not set
CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_SOFTLOCKUP_PANIC_VALUE=0
CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF=y
CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_CHECK_TIMESTAMP=y
CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
# CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HARDLOCKUP_PANIC is not set
CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HARDLOCKUP_PANIC_VALUE=0
# CONFIG_TEST_LOCKUP is not set
CONFIG_LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT=y
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y
CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y
# CONFIG_LOCK_STAT is not set
CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y
CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_BITS=15
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS=16
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_STACK_TRACE_BITS=19
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_STACK_TRACE_HASH_BITS=14
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS=12
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP=y
# CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS is not set
# CONFIG_LOCK_TORTURE_TEST is not set
# CONFIG_CSD_LOCK_WAIT_DEBUG is not set
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-28 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-17 12:01 Ziyang Xuan
2022-01-18 7:58 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2022-01-18 12:46 ` Ziyang Xuan (William)
2022-01-18 14:44 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2022-01-20 6:24 ` Ziyang Xuan (William)
2022-01-20 8:23 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2022-01-20 11:28 ` Ziyang Xuan (William)
2022-01-20 14:46 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2022-01-21 1:50 ` Ziyang Xuan (William)
2022-01-27 19:44 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2022-01-28 7:56 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2022-01-28 8:07 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2022-01-28 8:32 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2022-01-28 8:46 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2022-01-28 14:48 ` Oliver Hartkopp [this message]
2022-02-07 8:11 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2022-02-09 7:54 ` Oliver Hartkopp
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=07c69ccd-dbc0-5c74-c68e-8636ec9179ef@hartkopp.net \
--to=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=william.xuanziyang@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®